Marxism-Leninism and the One Party State

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I wanted to ask my Marxist-Leninist comrades about their feelings on the subject of the one party state.

It seems that a one party state is major facet of the Marxist-Leninist political program. Yet the historical record shows that these either tend to fail, or they stay in power through reaction (as with the historical Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the modern Communist Party of China).

[ComradeAllende]

Personally speaking, I find the concept of a one-party state repulsive. Partly because most one-party states have been authoritarian hell-holes, and partly because the initial move to a one-party system involves the quashing of any left-wing dissent.

In any case, I'm more of a council communist (if anything) than a Leninist, so I tend to be leery of Marxist-Leninist movements. Especially when they're operating in poor Third World countries.

[Comrade Jacob]

The one party is necessary. It becomes an easier job to suppress the bourgeoisie by not allowing them a party. Why should we give our oppressors a party?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The one party is necessary. It becomes an easier job to suppress the bourgeoisie by not allowing them a party. Why should we give our oppressors a party?

I'm not talking about allowing reactionary parties a seat at the table. I'm talking about a multi-party democracy consisting of progressive and socialist parties competing for votes.

[ckaihatsu]

The one party is necessary. It becomes an easier job to suppress the bourgeoisie by not allowing them a party. Why should we give our oppressors a party?





I'm not talking about allowing reactionary parties a seat at the table. I'm talking about a multi-party democracy consisting of progressive and socialist parties competing for votes.


Don't you see, though, that what you just said is inherently contradictory -- ?

The 'advantage' to our kind of politics is that, essentially, there's unanimity -- we don't have the overhead that comes with multi-economic-factional, arbitrary property-based fractious (and even petty) interests. Bourgeois politics is all about 'management' over everyone's 'right' to own property and represent it as they see fit -- *proletarian* interests are all about repressing the bourgeoisie so that the worker can finally lay claim to his or her own labor power. Much simpler.

The *history* of the one-party state has been complicated only because it had a prolonged struggle with the imperialist states, particularly the U.S. -- in *theory*, though, a one-party vehicle would simply suppress the bourgeois state worldwide and allow communism to flourish.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Ckaihatsu:

That's the problem, though. You say that the history of the one party state has been complicated due to prolonged struggle with imperialist states.....and in every case, they eventually dissolved or became forces of reaction. Would this not mean that the one party state either cannot adequately resist the imperial forces, or that a one party state becomes reactionary even if it succeeds in its opposition to imperialist forces?

[Gnat60]

A one party state can only surely come about when the economy is unable to produce a high enough level of surplus.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu:

That's the problem, though. You say that the history of the one party state has been complicated due to prolonged struggle with imperialist states.....and in every case, they eventually dissolved or became forces of reaction. Would this not mean that the one party state either cannot adequately resist the imperial forces, or that a one party state becomes reactionary even if it succeeds in its opposition to imperialist forces?





A one party state can only surely come about when the economy is unable to produce a high enough level of surplus.


Okay, this is a good point -- that a one-party state is the mark of bureaucratic political opportunism in lieu of actual material productivity and availability.

Certainly I'm not arguing for any kind of a constrained, circumscribed *state*, and I'm also not-arguing for a one-party vehicle on any kind of *principled* basis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The one party is necessary. It becomes an easier job to suppress the bourgeoisie by not allowing them a party. Why should we give our oppressors a party?

Presumably if you're new social system can't utilise the social power of the 90%+ of the population that makes up the exploited in modern capitalist economies, and relies on the suppression of dissent through dictatorship, then it's not built on the strongest social basis.

Also, as we have seen in the past but Leninists refuse to accept, it is very, very easy to adapt the definition and categorisation of 'capitalist enemy' to include ideological enemies, socialists you disagree with and so on. As we saw with the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s, the practical effect of the implementation of the one-party state that abides by Marxist-Leninist ideology and Democratic Centralist processes is a minority party whose interests become separated from the wider working class; ironically, the further its own interests become separated from those of workers, the greater chance there is of 'the party' categorising said workers as ideological enemies for opposing the actions of 'the party'.

[Gnat60]

It's an imperative I think that working class power is through a network of workers councils where all trends within the working class is not only represented but also their views are able to be freely propagated. If power is taken away or is subsumed by the previous capitalist state then state capitalism comes a step closer.

[Art Vandelay]

Presumably if you're new social system can't utilise the social power of the 90%+ of the population that makes up the exploited in modern capitalist economies, and relies on the suppression of dissent through dictatorship, then it's not built on the strongest social basis.

To be blunt, your comments here betray utter confusion on the topic you are commenting on. You claim that a new social order - organized as a one party state - is one which is not 'built on the strongest social basis.' The problem is, if the state exists, a 'new social order' has yet to be reached. As Marx said, between capitalism and communism lays a transitional period which can be nothing other then the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. So yes, during the transitional period (not a new social order), there will be a state, it will be a dictatorship, and objecting to this simply because it may take the form of a one party state, is the most vulgar fetishization of form over content.


Also, as we have seen in the past but Leninists refuse to accept, it is very, very easy to adapt the definition and categorisation of 'capitalist enemy' to include ideological enemies, socialists you disagree with and so on. As we saw with the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s, the practical effect of the implementation of the one-party state that abides by Marxist-Leninist ideology and Democratic Centralist processes is a minority party whose interests become separated from the wider working class; ironically, the further its own interests become separated from those of workers, the greater chance there is of 'the party' categorising said workers as ideological enemies for opposing the actions of 'the party'.
You extrapolate from a singular experience, the notion that a one party state necessarily leads to the interests of the workers and the party becoming separated. The October revolution is the only example we have of a proletarian revolution that smashed state power, erected a genuine proletarian dictatorship, and overturned capitalist property relations, so I'll grant that we should place great importance on analysing the events which led to it's failure. However, to simply chalk up the eventual counter-revolutionary nature of the ruling bonapartist bureaucracy to the fact that the Bolsheviks established a state which was political monolithic, seems to me to be an incredibly reductionist analysis.

There are no lessons here that 'Leninist refuse to accept.' Searching for an explanation of the failure of the Russian Revolution led Leninists not to break with Bolshevism, but reaffirmed their commitment to it; for it was the only perspective capable of providing the arsenal necessary for a correct analysis of the events that transpired.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To be blunt, your comments here betray utter confusion on the topic you are commenting on.

I'm not at all confused on the topic and to be honest if you want to debate the issue with me then debate the issue, don't presume to understand my level of knowledge, understanding, and clarity.


You claim that a new social order - organized as a one party state - is one which is not 'built on the strongest social basis.' The problem is, if the state exists, a 'new social order' has yet to be reached.

I could have worded what I said much, much better. As you say, the experience of the USSR in the 1920s shows that claims by a monolithic party (that is in the process of superseding state structures) of creating a new social order are divorced from reality if that new social order doesn't actually release those exploited under capitalism from the chains of exploitation.


As Marx said, between capitalism and communism lays a transitional period which can be nothing other then the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Why can there be nothing other than a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? And since when is the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the DotP the only valid one, since there has yet to be a successful implementation of the Marxist-Leninist interpretation in practice; all have ended in the type of dictatorship that is not attractive and in the eventual restoration of free-market capitalism.


So yes, during the transitional period (not a new social order), there will be a state, it will be a dictatorship, and objecting to this simply because it may take the form of a one party state, is the most vulgar fetishization of form over content.

I reject this. There is a great wealth of concrete and anecdotal evidence that suggests that even those who either in the past or currently view favourably the economic conditions that existed during 'revolutionary dictatorship' in places like the USSR and GDR, they either opposed or did not actively support the one-party dictatorship model precisely because it necessitated people losing basic freedoms for practically the entirety of their lifetimes.


You extrapolate from a singular experience, the notion that a one party state necessarily leads to the interests of the workers and the party becoming separated.

It was not a singular experience, though. The Russian Revolution was a period of many decades and contains a diversity of experiences. It is a practical treasure trove of evidence about the practical effects of the Marxist-Leninist implementation of revolutionary dictatorship. If your first defence of the Marxist-Leninist model is that the Russian Revolution is not an appropriate period of history to take evidence from in order to form a conclusion, then that's an indication of the weakness of the Marxist-Leninist interpretation more than the weakness of my investigative methods.


The October revolution is the only example we have of a proletarian revolution that smashed state power, erected a genuine proletarian dictatorship, and overturned capitalist property relations, so I'll grant that we should place great importance on analysing the events which led to it's failure.

This directly contradicts what you said above - is the failure of the Russian Revolution valid historical study or not, in the context of analysing the failure of the one-party dictatorship political model?


However, to simply chalk up the eventual counter-revolutionary nature of the ruling bonapartist bureaucracy to the fact that the Bolsheviks established a state which was political monolithic, seems to me to be an incredibly reductionist analysis.

I am not talking about the size of the state. I am talking about the one-party dictatorship model. The evidence seems to suggest to me not a problem with an increase in state institutions - indeed better schooling, more social measures and welfare seem to remain historically popular. The evidence seems to suggest that the bureaucracy grew precisely because the one-party model demanded that the party become the state and therefore the party itself becomes the bureaucracy, divorcing its own interests from those of ordinary workers.


There are no lessons here that 'Leninist refuse to accept.' Searching for an explanation of the failure of the Russian Revolution led Leninists not to break with Bolshevism, but reaffirmed their commitment to it; for it was the only perspective capable of providing the arsenal necessary for a correct analysis of the events that transpired.

What does this obfuscating collection of words mean, though? You seem to be saying that Leninists look at the failure of the Russian Revolution and see 'one last heave' as an appropriate response to a historical failure. Unless there is some clear evidence to suggest that repeating the mistakes of the Russian Revolution will lead to something other than dictatorship, show trials, and the labelling as 'enemies' of anybody who opposes the party bureaucracy, then this 'one last heave' strategy seems pretty baseless.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

@9mm:

And yet, the Russian Revolution still failed. Which brings me back to my original point. The Bolsheviks may have succeeded in seizing power, but in the chaos of the civil war that followed they were forced to centralize themselves more and more until even Lenin himself could do little to untangle it.

Yes, the Soviet state survived. But it almost immediately began to regress into reaction.

[N. Senada]

@9mm:

And yet, the Russian Revolution still failed. Which brings me back to my original point. The Bolsheviks may have succeeded in seizing power, but in the chaos of the civil war that followed they were forced to centralize themselves more and more until even Lenin himself could do little to untangle it.

Yes, the Soviet state survived. But it almost immediately began to regress into reaction.

The russian revolution was primarily defeated in Germany and in Italy, mainly due to lacks of vanguard parties (just to reconnect to another topic).
In Russia the practical issue of the building of a socialist alternative, after the defeat of the russian bourgeoisie was placed.
But there it could not be resolved.

Lenin knew it.
Trotsky knew it.
The bolsheviks knews it.

Once the revolution was defeated, the soviets could only try to resist, but even before this resistance could be tried, the revolution suffered his main defeat on this side of the barricade, by the stalinist counterevolution.

Assume the direct link between bolshevism and the later reaction and counterevolution is one of the bourgeoisie favourite sports.

[Art Vandelay]

Why can there be nothing other than a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? And since when is the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the DotP the only valid one, since there has yet to be a successful implementation of the Marxist-Leninist interpretation in practice; all have ended in the type of dictatorship that is not attractive and in the eventual restoration of free-market capitalism.

To be clear, although I feel this is fairly well known on the board as is, I am not a 'Marxist-Leninist.' I identify politically as an orthodox Trotskyist. My intervention here is not to defend 'Marxism-Leninism,' it's regimes or practices, which I view to be entirely bankrupt and of a petite-bourgeois and bonapartist character.

The reason that the transitional period, between capitalism and communism, must necessarily entail a period of proletarian dictatorship, is because during this time the state remains a necessary evil. Until the material conditions which necessitate the state's existence, ie: the stratification of society along differing relations to the means of production, the state exists whether we want it to or not. It's a common line of argumentation to claim that decentralized social organization is synonymous with statelessness, but that paradigm is unfortunately marred by the most obvious idealism, as it fails to wrestle with the pertinent question of what actually constitutes a state.

To claim that all past revolutions have eventually led to the restoration of capitalism, is so glaringly obvious that it is almost a banality. Yes, so, and what? Socialism can only be established on a global scale. It does not matter if the Bolsheviks organized themselves in a multi party decentralized fashion, or the fashion that they did, without international revolution, the situation had only one possible conclusion: failure.

I don't claim that a proletarian dictatorship must necessarily be a one party state. It could undoubtedly take many forms, but the form a proletarian dictatorship takes is obviously of secondary importance to it's political and class character.


I reject this. There is a great wealth of concrete and anecdotal evidence that suggests that even those who either in the past or currently view favourably the economic conditions that existed during 'revolutionary dictatorship' in places like the USSR and GDR, they either opposed or did not actively support the one-party dictatorship model precisely because it necessitated people losing basic freedoms for practically the entirety of their lifetimes.

You don't need to tell me this, as a Trotskyist, I am well aware. These situations, however, did not result as a necessary by-product of a one party state, but rather due to the nature of the states in question. The USSR and it's satellites under the Stalinist regime, did indeed create a stifling atmosphere to which the proletariat was subjected to, this is undeniable. The key thing which must not be lost sight of when analyzing why this was the case, is to not fall into the trap of fetishizing form over content, which is so frequently a problem on this site.


It was not a singular experience, though. The Russian Revolution was a period of many decades and contains a diversity of experiences. It is a practical treasure trove of evidence about the practical effects of the Marxist-Leninist implementation of revolutionary dictatorship. If your first defence of the Marxist-Leninist model is that the Russian Revolution is not an appropriate period of history to take evidence from in order to form a conclusion, then that's an indication of the weakness of the Marxist-Leninist interpretation more than the weakness of my investigative methods.

The issue is that those who want to lay the blame for the failure of the Russian revolution at the feet of the concept of a one party state, fail to see the forest for the trees. The principal cause of the rolling back of revolutionary gains enacted during October, is the failure of the German revolution. For a Marxist and a internationalist, this is undeniable. Once again, the form a proletarian dictatorship takes is irrelevant as long as it acts in harmony with proletarian class interests.


This directly contradicts what you said above - is the failure of the Russian Revolution valid historical study or not, in the context of analysing the failure of the one-party dictatorship political model?

I did not contradict myself, what I said - in my opinion - was quite clear. Yes the Russian revolution is a valid and important historical study case, particularly for analysing the tactics of the Bolsheviks. But an analysis that places the blame for this failure on a one party state model, decontextualizing it from the failure of the international revolution (while omitting the fact that as long as the international revolution failed it wouldn't of matter if it was a one party/multi party state, a centralized/decentralized state, or a state that forced everyone to wear funny hats), should make no pretenses to Marxism.


I am not talking about the size of the state. I am talking about the one-party dictatorship model.

I never said you were and am genuinely confused as to why you think I suggested otherwise. My comment that the Bolshevik state was politically monolithic should be read as being synonymous with saying that the Bolsheviks established a one party state.


The evidence seems to suggest to me not a problem with an increase in state institutions - indeed better schooling, more social measures and welfare seem to remain historically popular. The evidence seems to suggest that the bureaucracy grew precisely because the one-party model demanded that the party become the state and therefore the party itself becomes the bureaucracy, divorcing its own interests from those of ordinary workers.

This is a reductionist analysis, plain and simple. The question of what led to the bonapartist reaction in the USSR, personified by Stalin, is an extremely important and interesting question, one which requires a thorough and dialectical analysis. To simply say 'it was the one party state' and wash your hands of the situation is an approach that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.


What does this obfuscating collection of words mean, though?

It means that only Leninists were able to come to the correct conclusion on the events which preceded the October revolution; namely, that the Stalinist terror grew out of Bolshevism (something everyone from the bourgeoisie, the ostensible Marxists, and Leninists would agree on), where we differ is that Leninists understand that Stalinism grew out of Bolshevism/the one party state, not as a logical affirmation, but a thermidorian negation.

[Art Vandelay]

@9mm:

And yet, the Russian Revolution still failed. Which brings me back to my original point. The Bolsheviks may have succeeded in seizing power, but in the chaos of the civil war that followed they were forced to centralize themselves more and more until even Lenin himself could do little to untangle it.

Yes, the Soviet state survived. But it almost immediately began to regress into reaction.

And why was this the case? Really take some time to ponder over the question. After doing so, if you trace the blame of the failure of the October revolution to the Bolsheviks banning of other political parties and not to the failure of the revolution to spread (as if the Bolsheviks could ever succeed at establishing socialism within the confines of 1/5th of the globe), then I'd consider handing in your credentials as a Marxist.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

And why was this the case? Really take some time to ponder over the question. After doing so, if you trace the blame of the failure of the October revolution to the Bolsheviks banning of other political parties and not to the failure of the revolution to spread (as if the Bolsheviks could ever succeed at establishing socialism within the confines of 1/5th of the globe), then I'd consider handing in your credentials as a Marxist.

Hmmmm, yes. You do make a good point here.

Perhaps the increasing centralism was more of a symptom of the revolution's failure than the cause?

[Emmett Till]

Presumably if you're new social system can't utilise the social power of the 90%+ of the population that makes up the exploited in modern capitalist economies, and relies on the suppression of dissent through dictatorship, then it's not built on the strongest social basis.

Also, as we have seen in the past but Leninists refuse to accept, it is very, very easy to adapt the definition and categorisation of 'capitalist enemy' to include ideological enemies, socialists you disagree with and so on. As we saw with the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s, the practical effect of the implementation of the one-party state that abides by Marxist-Leninist ideology and Democratic Centralist processes is a minority party whose interests become separated from the wider working class; ironically, the further its own interests become separated from those of workers, the greater chance there is of 'the party' categorising said workers as ideological enemies for opposing the actions of 'the party'.

This is all a slander vs. Lenin. In fact, Lenin never advocated a "one party state," this is a good example of the difference between what Lenin advocated, to say nothing of Marx, and so-called "Marxism Leninism."

In fact, the Soviet regime began as a coalition government with the Left SR's. And after they resigned over their incredibly stupid opposition to the Brest-Litovsk treaty, it was still a coalition state, with the deputy head of the Cheka a Left SR's, and Left SR's all through the apparatus of the Soviet state, and not only in the Cheka. The Left SR's were banned when they tried to pull a secret police coup d'etat.

Virtually all the opponents of the Bolsheviks were either engaged in armed rebellion or at best, like the Mensheviks, trying to sabotage the civil war and the economy by getting workers to go on strike at a moment when literally millions of people were starving to death because of the destruction of the economy by the civil war and eighteen imperialist armies invading the country.

As late as 1922, shortly before Lenin died, you still had Mensheviks running for positions in Soviets and getting elected. Yes, in the desperate situation of 1921, the Bolsheviks cracked down on the Mensheviks and all other opposition parties, compelling most of the Menshevik leaders to go into exile.

Bul Lenin thought that having at least the possibility of multi-party Soviet democracy was so important that, believe it or not, the Bolsheviks were secretly funding the exiled Mensheviks! See Menshevik admirer Israel Getzler's bio of Menshevik leader Martov for details.

It was the horrible situation of Soviet Russia in the early 1920s that led to degeneration of the revolution, not any ideological errors of the Bolsheviks. As any Marxist materialist should be able to guess.

[Art Vandelay]

Hmmmm, yes. You do make a good point here.

Perhaps the increasing centralism was more of a symptom of the revolution's failure than the cause?

Centralism itself is not a bad thing. Centralization and decentralization are tactics to be employed based on the particular material conditions the proletariat finds itself in. People tend to focus on form, not content; it matters not whether a proletarian dictatorship is centralized or decentralized, but whether or not it is a manifestation of proletarian class interests.

There are certainly a lot of things one can point to when analyzing the October revolution and its aftermath, that would be symptomatic of its demise. However I've yet to find a persuasive line of argumentation to make the case that centralism was one, let alone a cause.

[code_red]

One party states can work depending on the society. The thing about Marxism/Communism is that there is no blueprint. For example, a one party state might work in a highly homogenised country with very little differences between different communities/communes. however, would not work in a complex society where there are many different groups of people with different opinions and views. As previously stated, there is no blueprint for communism. It has to be altered depending on the society.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The one party is necessary. It becomes an easier job to suppress the bourgeoisie by not allowing them a party. Why should we give our oppressors a party?

When did any suggest that? A bullet work better than a e-diatribe so presumably if the Revolution is successful and doesn't stagnate or whatever (my verbiage not Trotsky) then there wouldn't be a 'bourgeoisie' in the first place. Additionally, I don't really see a point or purpose for a 'party.' In fact it seems like a veritable Petri dish of pathological identitarianism, corruption, privilege, abuses, stagnation, death, general incompetence, inefficiency, oh and being totally worthless. History has shown such parliamentarian fuckery just doesn't work. We should try to move away from identity politics, focus group PR images, archaic theatrical rituals, authority fetishism, and so on.

There is people, people with ideas, and professionals with the know how to draw a plan and there is people to carry out whatever task has been collectively agreed upon; that's literally all. The people should carry the task of routing the bourgeoisie and remanents of le ancien regime, not some top-down group with the power over life and death. Think neighborhood watch groups on steroids.

[Emmett Till]

When did any suggest that? A bullet work better than a e-diatribe so presumably if the Revolution is successful and doesn't stagnate or whatever (my verbiage not Trotsky) then there wouldn't be a 'bourgeoisie' in the first place. Additionally, I don't really see a point or purpose for a 'party.' In fact it seems like a veritable Petri dish of pathological identitarianism, corruption, privilege, abuses, stagnation, death, general incompetence, inefficiency, oh and being totally worthless. History has shown such parliamentarian fuckery just doesn't work. We should try to move away from identity politics, focus group PR images, archaic theatrical rituals, authority fetishism, and so on.

There is people, people with ideas, and professionals with the know how to draw a plan and there is people to carry out whatever task has been collectively agreed upon; that's literally all. The people should carry the task of routing the bourgeoisie and remanents of le ancien regime, not some top-down group with the power over life and death. Think neighborhood watch groups on steroids.

What do neighborhood watch groups do? They exist to watch over people from other neighborhoods, turning 'em over to the cops if thought to be troublemakers. Usually, their main motivation is white racism.

For neighborhood watch groups on steroids, think about the Ku Klux Klan.

Of course it's the people who not only should but always do carry out the task of uprooting old regimes in all revolutions. Most certainly in 1917 in Russia. But the fact is that "the people" are not a homogenous entity, and in all class societies people are prey to ruling class ideologies like racism, sexism, nationalism, hatred of immigrants et cetera ad infinitum. Even in revolutionary situations.

So the more politically advanced and conscious people need to organize themselves to provide enlightenment and leadership to the less advanced, or we'll never get anywhere. That's what a revolutionary party is for.

A working class without a political party (like in America) has no political consciousness, and is merely economically a class in itself, not a class for itself that understands it is an oppressed class and can seek to overthrow capitalism.

Spontaneous, unorganized revolutions happen rarely, and when they do, just lead to collapse into chaos, like the Albanian revolution of 1998, where the workers completely overthrew the bosses and the capitalist state, and nobody even remembers it. Nobody had any idea of what to do next and the capitalists came right back into power for lack of any alternative.

More recently of course we have the fiasco of the "Arab Spring" and the much pettier fiasco of Occupy, which demonstrate how rebellions without a program and without a political party to lead them are inevitable failures.

[Burzhuin]

The answer is simple. Proletariat is taking over ALWAYS has some allies. If you take a look at the Great Socialist Revolution in Russia you will find out that at least three other parties supported Bolsheviks (Communist). Some of them later took arm against Workers Government, some dissipated and became members of RCP(b). Do we need more parties in Socialism? I believe not. But what we really need is more Workers involvement in governing the country after the revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

The one party is necessary. It becomes an easier job to suppress the bourgeoisie by not allowing them a party. Why should we give our oppressors a party?

Because if we don't, they will take ours.

Luís Henrique