Was Leninism "Inevitable"?

[redstar2000]

Since ideology is the product of material conditions, could we not then say that Leninism was "inevitable" in the Russia of the Czars?

This was a question addressed to me recently by a "desperate Leninist". He was implying, I suppose, that my criticisms of Lenin are "too harsh" -- Lenin could not be other than what he was, given the material reality of his times.

At the beginning of the 20th century, it was obvious to everyone in the tiny Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party that functioning in the way that social democratic parties functioned in Europe was simply impossible in Czarist Russia.

Even possession of Marxist literature was a crime in Russia then; there was certainly no way a "legal" political party could exist that promoted even western bourgeois ideas, much less Marxism.

But if you are compelled to operate "underground", what changes are required in your political and practical methods to make that "work"?

The first major controversy that Lenin became involved in was a very practical one -- how should a member of the RSDLP be formally defined? Lenin put forward a very "strict" definition: a member was defined as "one who works under the direction of a party group".

If you are operating underground, you want no "loose cannons" rolling about the countryside apt to do or say anything that might hurt the struggle.

Lenin went on to develop this insight into a theory of the revolutionary party as a "combat organization" waging a war against the Czarist autocracy.

Combat organizations have officers and soldiers; those who command and those who must carry out their orders or (quite literally) die trying.

Whether commanders or soldiers, they must be trained professionals -- Lenin heartily despised "amateurs" and "part-timers".

Combat organizations are not "talking shops" or "debating circles" (or, for that matter, internet message boards). The senior members of the party -- "the General Staff" -- might have many heated discussions on the best way forward. They almost all lived in exile and were free to meet as often as they wished, had time to write theoretical articles, etc. But "in the front lines", there's no time for debate and, indeed, it is actually dangerous. Meetings take place only to accomplish immediate practical tasks...too many gatherings can attract police attention.

It's unlikely that Lenin's ideas were "perfectly realized" -- politicized people "like" to argue politics and, especially in the larger Russian cities, I'm sure there was discussion and argument between party members. The Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP was not nearly as "monolithic" in practice as it was "on paper".

But balanced against this must be the fact of Lenin's personal charisma -- his admirers and supporters in the party were, by contemporary accounts, extraordinarily impressed with the man and gave his opinions "the benefit of the doubt".

This in spite of the fact that his conception of a revolutionary combat organization was actually less successful than the somewhat "looser" ideas of his rival Mensheviks -- at the time of the great uprising in Petrograd (February 1917), there were considerably more people (including workers) who supported the Mensheviks than who supported the Bolsheviks.

Of course, the Mensheviks also operated "underground" as did nearly everyone who actually wanted to do anything. But the Mensheviks did not really have a "Lenin" -- their leader, Martov, was much more a "first among equals" than a "man of destiny".

Further, Menshevik politics were "flabby" and often incoherent; they frequently combined a sound Marxist analysis with a bourgeois practical response. (!)

Consequently, when Bolsheviks and Mensheviks struggled with each other for control of the soviets during the summer of 1917, Lenin's "disciplined" approach and more consistent politics "paid off". The armed detachments formed by the factory committees and the soviets as well as the units of the old army that remained "took orders" from the Bolsheviks that they would probably never have taken from the Mensheviks -- even if the Mensheviks could have brought themselves to "give orders" in the first place.

When Lenin decided to "seize power" (stage a coup) on the evening before the first meeting of the All Russia Congress of Soviets, he was able to "order it done" and it was done.

So that's essentially what happened...could it have happened otherwise?

Both the actual material conditions and Russian revolutionary traditions suggest that underground political resistance, more or less disciplined, was indeed inevitable. Had Lenin not existed, someone "like" him would have almost certainly come forward to argue a similar perspective -- that the only "practical" way to carry out underground resistance is with a highly disciplined, professional, and centralized "combat organization".

Once you form such a group, it's evolutionary path is obvious (to us, not necessarily to people living in those times). Because combat organizations are not "talking shops", talk gradually ceases...except at the top. It doesn't happen all at once, of course...it can take quite a long time. Then it stops at the top as well...you get a Stalin or a Mao.

This is especially likely in a country emerging from autocracy...it is "easy" to slide back into despotism. Many in the Russian countryside, again by contemporary reports, referred to Lenin as "the new Czar" -- it was intended as a compliment.

Material conditions can tell you a lot: Russia was not as peasant-dominated as China was -- but it did produce its own "early Mao". The peasant anarchist Nester Makhno, an enormously skillful guerrilla commander, would have almost certainly became "the new Czar" had his forces been victorious over the Bolsheviks...and today it would be anarchism that would be tarred with the brush of despotism rather than communism -- Makhno would have been compelled to do what Lenin did to "save the revolution".

As a unrepentant Marxist, I'm really sorry that Makhno didn't win.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

The peasant anarchist Nester Makhno, an enormously skillful guerrilla commander, would have almost certainly became "the new Czar" had his forces been victorious over the Bolsheviks...and today it would be anarchism that would be tarred with the brush of despotism rather than communism -- Makhno would have been compelled to do what Lenin did to "save the revolution".

Are you being sarcastic?

[antieverything]

Chamberlin, William Henry. 1965. The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921, Vol 1. Chapter 1.

This presents a very interesting view of how the Russian Revolution would inevitably result in an authoritarian state. Perhaps, it is a better argument for the relation of Stalinism to Leninism to Czarism than to the inevitability of Leninism but it is interesting nonetheless.

[redstar2000]

Are you being sarcastic?

Not in the least.

Makhno in the field was one kind of guy. In the Kremlin, he almost certainly would have been quite another.

Of course, you could make the argument that he would have remained faithful to his declared principles even as the whole edifice of the revolution crumbled around him...but I think that misreads the influence of material conditions.

If material conditions do not permit the establishment of what we really want, the most common reaction is to "adjust our principles" to fit material conditions.

It's true that the Leninists "prepared themselves" for despotism throughout their existence...greasing the slide, as it were.

But note that Makhno never "captured the imagination" of urban workers...even when he was successful in briefly capturing some Ukrainian cities. For city-dwellers, it was still Bolsheviks vs. Mensheviks.

A Makhno regime would probably have begun with pronounced favoritism towards the peasantry...an even more vigorous NEP than Lenin introduced. While peasants would have prospered, city workers would have found themselves paying higher and higher prices for basic foodstuffs.

When urban discontent became sufficiently public and vigorous, what could Makhno do but suppress it forcefully? Particularly when it would have almost certainly been led by his old enemies, the Bolsheviks. (Lenin might have been dead or in exile; but those Bolsheviks who had enjoyed power and prosperity however briefly -- and there were thousands of them -- would not rest content under a regime that had deprived them of their "well-earned" rewards.)

There would have been an "anarchist" peasant despotism; just as Mao created a "communist" peasant despotism.

If Makhno had won, the Bolshevik approach to "communism" would have been immediately discredited (it lost!), hence no Comintern, no Stalin, etc. Hence no automatic identification of communism and Marxism with despotism.

So yes, I really do wish Makhno had won out over Lenin -- it would have made my tasks enormously easier.

I guess that's "selfish" of me... :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Retro]

Just throwing around random speculation, because we can't live off "what if's" but if Makhno had won, you gotta wonder where everything would be like now at this point. We wouldn't have to worry about so much ignorance being thrown around comparing Leninism to True Communism.

Then we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about people thinking it wouldn&#39;t work just because of Russia <_<

[monkeydust]

Furthermore, if Makhno had had won, would Stalin have risen to power?....Very unlikely.

So, in this case, would the Soviet leader at the time have instigated such radical industrialisation as Stalin&#39;s three 5 year plans. Again, quite unlikely.

So in this case, would Russia have been able to put up a good fight in World War 2, would she have been able to repel, and eventually conquer the Nazi threat, quite possibly not.

In this case, Germany would have potentially defeated the USSR with relative ease, would have acquired her resources, and would no longer have to fight a two front war.

So, would the Nazi&#39;s in this case, have potentially won? It&#39;s certainly possible, indeed, it would have likely prolonged their existance, don&#39;t forget that had Germany had another year in the war she would have easily been able to fully use her new technology, such as the Jet Engine.

In any case, this is just pointless speculation..............

[redstar2000]

In any case, this is just pointless speculation..............

Your criticism is well-founded; "what if" threads do tend to "spin out of control" very easily.

I probably should have resisted the temptation to take a little dig at the Maoists by bringing in Makhno as an "early Mao"...though I do think the parallel is interesting.

And we&#39;ll never have even a remote chance of learning if Germany would have won World War II had there been no Bolshevik despotism in Russia...or if there would have even been a Third Reich had there been no USSR.

I promise to try and not start "what if" threads any more.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 11:56 PM

The peasant anarchist Nester Makhno, an enormously skillful guerrilla commander, would have almost certainly became "the new Czar" had his forces been victorious over the Bolsheviks...and today it would be anarchism that would be tarred with the brush of despotism rather than communism -- Makhno would have been compelled to do what Lenin did to "save the revolution".

Are you being sarcastic?
He has tried too hard to take a swipe at anarchists in a "what if" situation (a fantasy situation). I suspect he has done this to rid of the anarchistic perception that some users on this board have of him.

Ignoring that "what if" situations are essentially meaningless, since they hardly tell us anything useful, if anything at all, the suggestion that Makhno would have been compelled "to do the same or similar to what Lenin did" is looking at the situation in an extremely abstract way. This kind of observation seems unattached to the actual reality of anarchists and anarchism.

Let us start think as to whether Makhno would even be compelled to do such a thing (create despotism...in the name of anarchism). Would Makhno even dare to dispel of his anarchist principles (anarchists have a complete rejection of use of the state or hierarchy)? Even if it meant defeat...although he and his forces "won"? That is the first question.

The second question is: What if Makhno did see himself compelled to do what Lenin did and stage a coup to "keep the masses at bay"? This means that Makhno has re-evaluated his ideological foundations, and has rejected anarchism. Lenin did not reject Marxism in his case. He saw himself as a Marxist, because his views did not much contradict Marxism -- Marx was all too vague and contradictory in his writings, since he had no clear view.

Now, even if Makhno came to the conclusion to reject anarchist principles and seize power, would he enjoy enough support from anarchists to help his quest to take power? He could have support from "ordinary people", but from the anarchists themselves? I think not. So who would have helped him?...the crooks who wanted power. So he would rather have joined them, declared them right, and dispelled of the anarchist tag.

Now, what if Makhno continued to call himself an anarchist then? One must ask themself whether Makhno would even be allowed to misuse the anarchist ideology in the way Lenin (arguably) misused Marxism, or the writings of Marx.

I am convinced that Makhno would never be allowed to misuse the term "anarchism". This is because anarchism has concrete beliefs as to how one gets to a classless society. (The essential concrete belief is that the state or hierarchy should not be used, set up, or even supported. Only non-hierarchical direct democratic structures can be used.) If Makhno did indeed intend to use the anarchist tag, he would be well stopped short. No real anarchist would take him seriously, and they would immediately denounce him. He would be re-writing an established theory. Consequently, he would not be able to start a new anarchist variant either.

In the case of Marxism, however, there is no crystal-clear view on how a classless society comes about. Thus, Lenin was able to shape "Marxism" as he pleased. He had no serious opposition (if any) to this misuse, and it was this fact that allowed the name of Marx to be tarred. Lenin did not do much re-writing -- rather, he "developed" it.

So, as one can see, there are several large barriers in place that almost certainly dispels the thought that Makhno would have created "a despotism in the name of anarchism". There are two serious doubts as to whether Makhno would indeed create a despotism, and secondly, whether he would be able to use the name of anarchism.

There&#39;s one major flaw in the argument that Makhno would have created a despotism had he defeated the Bolshevik attack, which I have overlooked until now...

If Makhno had won, then he would almost certainly had popular support or enough support to have anarchy set up right away, without him even needing to look over matters. Thus he would not be compelled to even think of forcing anyone under his rule in the first place.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 03:26 AM

In any case, this is just pointless speculation..............

Your criticism is well-founded; "what if" threads do tend to "spin out of control" very easily.

I probably should have resisted the temptation to take a little dig at the Maoists by bringing in Makhno as an "early Mao"...though I do think the parallel is interesting.

And we&#39;ll never have even a remote chance of learning if Germany would have won World War II had there been no Bolshevik despotism in Russia...or if there would have even been a Third Reich had there been no USSR.

I promise to try and not start "what if" threads any more.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
I was criticising more my own speculation rather than the concept of &#39;what if&#39;s&#39; as a whole.

Such speculation, admittedly can be quite pointless, yet personally I&#39;m often interested as to what &#39;might have been&#39;, even if we can never ascertain with any certainty what would have been.

Furthermore, though we may never have much chance in finding out what might have been, by looking at what&#39;s likely we may be able to draq parralels with events in the future, who knows, I certainly don&#39;t. In any case, I say no real problem with &#39;what if&#39; threads even if they&#39;re pointless.

[Saint-Just]

I suspect he has done this to rid of the anarchistic perception that some users on this board have of him. -Comrade James

redstar2000 is an anarchist, he only says that if the material conditions are not right then anarchism will not triumph:


Of course, you could make the argument that he would have remained faithful to his declared principles even as the whole edifice of the revolution crumbled around him...but I think that misreads the influence of material conditions. -redstar2000

He still favours anarchism, his interpretation of Marxism is that Marxism is anarchism.

[Morpheus]

I refuted RedStar&#39;s position on this at http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1077597711 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&num=1077597711) Take a look, if your&#39;e interested.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:41 PM
Since ideology is the product of material conditions, could we not then say that Leninism was "inevitable" in the Russia of the Czars?

This was a question addressed to me recently by a "desperate Leninist". He was implying, I suppose, that my criticisms of Lenin are "too harsh" -- Lenin could not be other than what he was, given the material reality of his times.
I have no idea what this unnamed person meant, but the question that logically follows is not what you suggest, but rather: why do you bother to debate different ideas if material conditions produce everything?

One factual correction: there were, in fact, legal bourgeois-democratic groups under the tsar, the Kadets for example. There was, however, no organisation of the capitalist class, legal or illegal, that favored the revolutionary overthrow of the tsar. The Mensheviks hoped the bourgeoisie would lead a revolution but the bourgeoisie was wholly uninterested in this. They knew where it would end up.

I&#39;m no longer interested in prolonged debate with you, but I did want to post something I wrote on another board which touches on your position that Russia wasn&#39;t economically ready for socialism and therefore the bourgeoisie should have been left to make a bourgeois revolution.


I&#39;d say Trotsky was wrong as against Lenin in many of his pre-1917 views, and he went back to some of those views after 1928. But even with those errors, he stood far closer to Lenin&#39;s positions than, say, the Mensheviks did.

Trotsky and Lenin both recognized that the working class had to lead the revolution, that the bourgeoisie could no longer lead even a bourgeois-democratic revolution, even in a backward country like Russia. This put them in contrast to the Mensheviks, who had a two-stage theory of revolution and thought that the bourgeoisie had to lead the first stage, and that a prolonged period of capitalist development would have to happen before the second.

And it puts them closer than either stand to Stalin&#39;s later position on revolutions in China and other Third World countries, which was essentially a rehash of the Menshevik&#39;s two-stage position, that there had to be a bourgeois revolution first. (This was also the position of Stalin&#39;s successors, from Kruschev to Gorbachev, from Mao to Deng, and of Communist Parties worldwide, if they held franchises from Moscow or Beijing.) RedStar2000, who some people here may be familiar with from another board, is essentially taking this position, and retroactively applying it to the Russian Revolution as well. Which is more consistent, actually.

It&#39;s interesting to read what many Cuban communists say about the positions they had to break with in order to make a socialist revolution in their country. The theory put forward by the PSP, for example, that no such thing was possible.

As I&#39;ve commented before, RedStar, who received his early political training in some Stalinist group - probably Maoist - is still operating on the same basic theory. In this case, the theory of letting the bourgeoisie lead the "first stage" of the revolution in backward countries. ( A theory which somehow persists despite the fact that the bourgeoisie has consistently shown itself unwilling or unable to lead social revolutions since it turned against the 1848 revolutions in Europe...a little later in North America with the decision to crush Radical Reconstruction.) Only difference between RedStar now and his past: he draws the logical conclusion of applying this to 1917 Russia as well.

As for his sometimes anarchist-seeming rejection of Leninism: the CPUSA is now openly saying the same thing (after rejecting Leninism in practice decades ago). A common phenomenon among modern Stalinists, to disown their crimes by blaming it on Leninism.

BTW...what about Cuba? Obviously the material conditions for socialism were even less ripe than in Russia. How to explain the tremendous difference between the results? (Unless, of course, you choose to simply ignore facts that don&#39;t fit your theory, by claiming that Cuba is no different from the Stalinist states.)

[redstar2000]

...why do you bother to debate different ideas if material conditions produce everything?

Well, one of the obvious things that material conditions produce is debate over "what is to be done".

Because of material conditions, we can only conceive of a limited range of possible futures...but insofar as we can conceive of them, we naturally argue for the one that "looks best" to us.

A "Marx" could not have existed much earlier than he did...there was nothing to see that would have prompted anyone to look at things the way he did.


The Mensheviks hoped the bourgeoisie would lead a revolution but the bourgeoisie was wholly uninterested in this.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that the general consensus among pre-World War I Marxists was that the class character of the post-revolutionary Russian regime would be bourgeois...not necessarily that the bourgeoisie as a class would actually "lead it".


Trotsky and Lenin both recognized that the working class had to lead the revolution, that the bourgeoisie could no longer lead even a bourgeois-democratic revolution, even in a backward country like Russia. This put them in contrast to the Mensheviks, who had a two-stage theory of revolution and thought that the bourgeoisie had to lead the first stage, and that a prolonged period of capitalist development would have to happen before the second.

I think that&#39;s where the confusion lies. If I&#39;m not mistaken, even Marx began to have strong doubts about the bourgeoisie&#39;s ability to "make its own revolution" after the failures of 1848.

The fact that the proletariat (or the peasantry) make the revolution doesn&#39;t change the material conditions that demand capitalism as "the next stage".

And that&#39;s what has actually happened. All the rhetoric about "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" was actually a distraction; capitalism emerged even though the early capitalists themselves played no role or even a counter-revolutionary role.

It&#39;s often the case in history that what people say they are going to do and what they actually do when compelled by circumstances are very different from each other.

The last years of Lenin&#39;s life, for example, were devoted to the "New Economic Policy" -- otherwise known as capitalism.


As for his [redstar&#39;s] sometimes anarchist-seeming rejection of Leninism: the CPUSA is now openly saying the same thing (after rejecting Leninism in practice decades ago). A common phenomenon among modern Stalinists, to disown their crimes by blaming it on Leninism.

I think that one deserves a "link" -- if the CPUSA is rejecting Leninism these days (???), then it can only be in favor of overt social democracy or bourgeois liberalism or a combination of the two...not "anarchism".

As for myself, I have no "crimes" to "disown"...though perhaps some youthful errors to correct.


...what about Cuba? Obviously the material conditions for socialism were even less ripe than in Russia. How to explain the tremendous difference between the results?

I&#39;m not sure what you mean about "tremendous difference" in this context. If you mean Fidel is a much "nicer guy" than Stalin was, I would put that one down to chance.

In Russia, the urban working class held power briefly, only to surrender it to the Bolsheviks -- who became over time a new bourgeoisie. In Cuba, being as you say "less ripe", the working class has never held power at all.

It looks to me like the open restoration of capitalism in Cuba is "only a matter of time". I realize that&#39;s a "pessimistic" prediction and history may always throw us another "curve ball".

So we&#39;ll see.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 25 2004, 11:24 AM
He still favours anarchism, his interpretation of Marxism is that Marxism is anarchism.
I don&#39;t think he redstar believes that at all because it blatantly isnt true. Of course there are examples of Marxism which are relevant but others which are not.

I think he believes that when marxism was put into practice by lenin it failed, over and over again. Leninists refuse to even think of the possibility of straying away from the classical marxist theory giving it an almost religious edge and not much room for development. Redstar has admitted that Leninism dosnt work and that there has to be another away to put marxism into practice. That does not make him an anarchist, and it does not mean that he thinks that marxism is anarchism...It quite simply is not&#33;

Leninists are desperatly trying to cling onto the good old days, desperatly wanting to make leninism work, depseratly trying to find a way to put it into practice without revising the dogma. Marxism was not and can not be some rigid strict dogmatic, unchangable theory because, just like the vangaurdist movements now, it puts you into stale mate. The leninist method dosnt work, it never has and it never will, and unless we bring marxism up to date it is never going to happen, insofar as we reach communism.

[Severian]

Redstar&#39;s post in quotes. My earlier post, quoted by Redstar, in italics.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:45 AM
...why do you bother to debate different ideas if material conditions produce everything?

Well, one of the obvious things that material conditions produce is debate over "what is to be done".

Because of material conditions, we can only conceive of a limited range of possible futures...but insofar as we can conceive of them, we naturally argue for the one that "looks best" to us.

A "Marx" could not have existed much earlier than he did...there was nothing to see that would have prompted anyone to look at things the way he did.
Uh...so you&#39;re posting here because material conditions make you do it?

You&#39;re dodging my question. I&#39;m not asking for a causal explanation of the phenomenon. I&#39;m asking if you have any reason for thinking it&#39;s a good idea, or that your statements about politics will have any effect on history.


The Mensheviks hoped the bourgeoisie would lead a revolution but the bourgeoisie was wholly uninterested in this.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that the general consensus among pre-World War I Marxists was that the class character of the post-revolutionary Russian regime would be bourgeois...not necessarily that the bourgeoisie as a class would actually "lead it".

Not sure what role they thought the bourgeoisie would have in the initial overthrow, but in any case an amazingly stupid quibble, even for you. A revolution does not end at the moment power is seized - in fact, that&#39;s when the hard part usually starts. If you hand over power to the bourgeoisie, either you&#39;re hoping they&#39;ll lead the revolution from that point...or you&#39;re consciously against revolution. Seems to me that the Mensheviks were the former.


Trotsky and Lenin both recognized that the working class had to lead the revolution, that the bourgeoisie could no longer lead even a bourgeois-democratic revolution, even in a backward country like Russia. This put them in contrast to the Mensheviks, who had a two-stage theory of revolution and thought that the bourgeoisie had to lead the first stage, and that a prolonged period of capitalist development would have to happen before the second.

I think that&#39;s where the confusion lies. If I&#39;m not mistaken, even Marx began to have strong doubts about the bourgeoisie&#39;s ability to "make its own revolution" after the failures of 1848.

He sure did - more than just "doubts". Didn&#39;t think you were aware of that...considering that you once claimed not to know of any important lessons from the 1848 revolutions.


The fact that the proletariat (or the peasantry) make the revolution doesn&#39;t change the material conditions that demand capitalism as "the next stage".

And that&#39;s what has actually happened. All the rhetoric about "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" was actually a distraction; capitalism emerged even though the early capitalists themselves played no role or even a counter-revolutionary role.

It&#39;s often the case in history that what people say they are going to do and what they actually do when compelled by circumstances are very different from each other.

The last years of Lenin&#39;s life, for example, were devoted to the "New Economic Policy" -- otherwise known as capitalism.

Oh, BS, the NEP was not the restoration of capitalism. No sane person thought it was, including the capitalists, who do have a pretty good pragmatic awareness of their class interests. Rather, it was a partial retreat from measures that were taken solely because of the Civil War.

If one were to deal with a more serious version of the attempted point...the question would be, can the working class & allied toilers take power, and restrict themselves solely to bourgeois-democratic tasks?

The Soviet government actually attempted to do this initially. (The Bolsheviks were, of course, fully aware that Russia by itself was not ready for socialism....and that everything depended on aiding revolutions to the west.) If you look at the initial decrees, they dealt with things like land, the nationality question, the war. Socialism was little mentioned.

It proved to be necessary, however, to break the economic power of the capitalist class in order to stay in power and achieve even the democratic goals. The alternative would have been a bloody counterrevolution.

That&#39;s been the experience of other revolutions as well. Not least the Cuban Revolution...not even led by a socialist organization at first, but forced to smash capitalism in order to survive. There are negative counterexamples as well....Nicaragua, Algeria....


As for his [redstar&#39;s] sometimes anarchist-seeming rejection of Leninism: the CPUSA is now openly saying the same thing (after rejecting Leninism in practice decades ago). A common phenomenon among modern Stalinists, to disown their crimes by blaming it on Leninism.

I think that one deserves a "link" -- if the CPUSA is rejecting Leninism these days (???), then it can only be in favor of overt social democracy or bourgeois liberalism or a combination of the two...not "anarchism".


Yes, social democracy, which they&#39;ve long resembled in practice. Why would you think I was saying they were anarchist? Or even that you were? What part of "sometimes anarchist-seeming" do you have trouble understanding?

In any case, here&#39;s the link you asked for. (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6527/652750.html)


As for myself, I have no "crimes" to "disown"...though perhaps some youthful errors to correct

Obviously, my point was about the evolution of a political tendency which has plenty of crimes to disown, not about the state of your soul.


...what about Cuba? Obviously the material conditions for socialism were even less ripe than in Russia. How to explain the tremendous difference between the results?

I&#39;m not sure what you mean about "tremendous difference" in this context. If you mean Fidel is a much "nicer guy" than Stalin was, I would put that one down to chance.

In Russia, the urban working class held power briefly, only to surrender it to the Bolsheviks -- who became over time a new bourgeoisie. In Cuba, being as you say "less ripe", the working class has never held power at all.

It looks to me like the open restoration of capitalism in Cuba is "only a matter of time". I realize that&#39;s a "pessimistic" prediction and history may always throw us another "curve ball".

So we&#39;ll see.

Um...OK&#33; Cuba was never anything but a capitalist country, huh? (Not a unique position, of course, it&#39;s also held by the Sparts and the WSWS. Who&#39;ve been saying that "the open restoration of capitalism in Cuba is "only a matter of time"" for decades....while remaining as perpetually disappointed as Miami exiles always repacking their suitcases in anticipation of Castro&#39;s overthrow. And funny how nobody in Washington ever realizes their class brothers are in charge in Havana&#33;)

So why the heck are you posting on a site named after Che Guevara...head of the National Bank and Minister of Industry in a bourgeois government&#33; What a sellout he musta been&#33; Haven&#39;t you been a little dishonest, by posting on this site without making clear that he can&#39;t be considered any kind of role model by communists? (Or is he a role model after all...should we all be aspiring to that kind of post?)

You snipped this out of the post you were replying to, but it seems even more appropriate then I&#39;d thought:

(Unless, of course, you choose to simply ignore facts that don&#39;t fit your theory, by claiming that Cuba is no different from the Stalinist states.)

Always a pleasure when a prediction pans out....that being the measure of good theory, after all.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected]b 23 2004, 11:48 PM
Now, even if Makhno came to the conclusion to reject anarchist principles and seize power, would he enjoy enough support from anarchists to help his quest to take power? He could have support from "ordinary people", but from the anarchists themselves? I think not.
When Spanish anarchist leaders served as ministers, this blatant violation of anarchist principle did not lead most other Spanish anarchists to disavow them. The experience of history is, when it comes to the crisis, anarchism tends to stick to its stated principles even less than most political tendencies.

I agree that "what ifs" are pointless...and this even more pointless than most as its so unlikely that anarchists could have led a revolution. The historical record is that they don&#39;t generally break their principles in that particular direction....at least consistently enough to succeed. Leading a revolution is a greater strategic challenge than being heroically crushed, and/or selling out to the bourgeoisie, after all.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m asking if you have any reason for thinking it&#39;s a good idea, or that your statements about politics will have any effect on history.

I think the "historical effect" of any given individual is "too small to measure"...if we are speaking here of the transition between different forms of class society or the transition from class society to classless society.

The fact that certain individuals "loom large" in history is, I think, both a matter of chance and an error of perspective.

There would have been a "Marx" even if Marx had never lived. And while it is "easy" for historians to document his life and work, what really counted was the millions of people who appropriated his ideas and attempted to implement them to the best of their understanding.

Will my ideas have "an effect on history"? I have no idea...though naturally I would be very happy if they do.

But that will only happen if a whole lot of people think my ideas make sense and go out to apply them in the real world.

And then they won&#39;t really be "my" ideas any more, will they?

Like it or not, the masses make history.


Not sure what role they thought the bourgeoisie would have in the initial overthrow, but in any case an amazingly stupid quibble, even for you. A revolution does not end at the moment power is seized - in fact, that&#39;s when the hard part usually starts. If you hand over power to the bourgeoisie, either you&#39;re hoping they&#39;ll lead the revolution from that point...or you&#39;re consciously against revolution. Seems to me that the Mensheviks were the former.

Well, I won&#39;t dispute the matter; we have no Mensheviks now to bring forward what they wrote for themselves.

I simply wished to make the point that modern bourgeois revolutions do not have to actually be made or led by the bourgeoisie -- that material conditions ultimately determine the class content of a revolution and not the colors of the flags or the rhetoric of the platform.

You are free, if you wish, to regard that as a "stupid quibble".


...the NEP was not the restoration of capitalism. No sane person thought it was, including the capitalists, who do have a pretty good pragmatic awareness of their class interests.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don&#39;t. In the 1920s, they were quite terrified by Bolshevism...unwilling, for example, to provide foreign investment to NEP-era Russia inspite of Lenin offering them incredibly favorable terms.

Now, of course, the more sophisticated elements understand that the red flags and the rhetoric don&#39;t really mean that you can&#39;t "do business" with "communists" -- look at the investments that have been made in Vietnam or the investments currently being made in Cuba.

People sometimes wistfully claim that "if only Lenin had lived, there would have been no Stalinism". That could be true; what there would have been was something resembling Titoism...the slow but certain restoration of capitalism. All the requirements were "in place": private property, wage-labor, commodity production for profit, market economics, money, etc., etc.


...the question would be, can the working class & allied toilers take power, and restrict themselves solely to bourgeois-democratic tasks?

That&#39;s an extremely mid-leading way of phrasing the question. The "working class & allied toilers" never had power except briefly and sporadically in different parts of Russia at different times.

The Bolshevik Party had power "in the name" of all those fine folks you mentioned.

Had Bukharin&#39;s continuation of Lenin&#39;s policies "won out" in the inter-party struggles of the 1920s, bourgeois democracy would have been the consequence.


Cuba was never anything but a capitalist country, huh?

Did I say that? Strictly speaking, I think Cuba was probably more of a "neo-colony" of the USSR than anything else.

After the collapse of the USSR, I think it fair to say that Cuba has a "mixed economy" with the private sector growing in size and influence...unless there is some sort of unexpected change in the course of developments there, the open restoration of capitalism is inevitable.


And funny how nobody in Washington ever realizes their class brothers are in charge in Havana&#33;

And speaking of "stupid quibbles"...

1. There is a substantial group of American capitalists who very much desire the restoration of normal economic relations with Cuba.

2. The abstract notion that capitalists always "recognize" their "class brothers" is quite absurd...capitalists, as Marx once quipped, have destroyed more capitalists than communists ever could.

3. The political influence of the gusano "community" in Miami within the Republican wing of bourgeois politics is not to be overlooked. Those guys don&#39;t want to see a new capitalist class in Cuba...unless it&#39;s them&#33;

4. From the standpoint of the Washington, D.C. elite, even the issues of "democracy" and "free markets" are subsidiary to the most important consideration: servility towards Washington, D.C. They don&#39;t want a bunch of bourgeois nationalists in power in Cuba...they want reliable quislings&#33;


So why the heck are you posting on a site named after Che Guevara...head of the National Bank and Minister of Industry in a bourgeois government&#33; What a sellout he musta been&#33; Haven&#39;t you been a little dishonest, by posting on this site without making clear that he can&#39;t be considered any kind of role model by communists? (Or is he a role model after all...should we all be aspiring to that kind of post?)

I post here because people raise interesting questions to talk about and seem to be receptive to some, if not all, of my ideas.

You don&#39;t have to be a "Guevara-ist" to post here...in fact, Guevara-ism doesn&#39;t seem to have any but a romantic appeal in the advanced capitalist countries. The guy himself has become a kind of symbol of revolutionary commitment.

That doesn&#39;t bother me; does it bother you?

Of course, if I were to set up a message board, I might call it "Marx-Lives"...but maybe that wouldn&#39;t have as much appeal as the present name of the board.

In any event, I&#39;ve never pretended here to be "an ardent disciple" of Che; from what I know of the fellow, I don&#39;t think he liked disciples anyway. My impression is that he wanted people to learn how to think and act as revolutionaries -- not just "follow him".

If so, that&#39;s good advice.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:36 AM

So why the heck are you posting on a site named after Che Guevara...head of the National Bank and Minister of Industry in a bourgeois government&#33; What a sellout he musta been&#33; Haven&#39;t you been a little dishonest, by posting on this site without making clear that he can&#39;t be considered any kind of role model by communists? (Or is he a role model after all...should we all be aspiring to that kind of post?)

I post here because people raise interesting questions to talk about and seem to be receptive to some, if not all, of my ideas.

You don&#39;t have to be a "Guevara-ist" to post here...in fact, Guevara-ism doesn&#39;t seem to have any but a romantic appeal in the advanced capitalist countries. The guy himself has become a kind of symbol of revolutionary commitment.

That doesn&#39;t bother me; does it bother you?

Of course, if I were to set up a message board, I might call it "Marx-Lives"...but maybe that wouldn&#39;t have as much appeal as the present name of the board.

In any event, I&#39;ve never pretended here to be "an ardent disciple" of Che; from what I know of the fellow, I don&#39;t think he liked disciples anyway. My impression is that he wanted people to learn how to think and act as revolutionaries -- not just "follow him".
Oh, BS. You denounce Lenin and the Russian Revolution, while mostly remaining silent about Che and the Cuban Revolution, for the sole reason that one is more popular than the other among your intended audience. This is simply dishonest.

But I&#39;ve wasted enough time on you...and I think I&#39;ve gotten you to drop your mask as much as I&#39;m going to at this time. The mask being your false claim to be communist...

Edit: Oh, what the heck. I recently refuted RedStar&#39;s "Cuba was a Soviet neocolony" claim in detail...when it was raised by another Maoist on another board. Here&#39;s the post. (http://www.socialistfront.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=13&t=984&st=15&#entry13890)

[redstar2000]

Oh, BS. You denounce Lenin and the Russian Revolution, while mostly remaining silent about Che and the Cuban Revolution, for the sole reason that one is more popular than the other among your intended audience. This is simply dishonest.

BS yourself, asshole&#33;

You asked a question; I answered it. You don&#39;t like my answer, go fuck yourself&#33;


But I&#39;ve wasted enough time on you...and I think I&#39;ve gotten you to drop your mask as much as I&#39;m going to at this time. The mask being your false claim to be communist...

False claim? Because I decline to flop on my belly before a couple of corpses (Lenin and Trotsky) like you do?

Shove your icons up your ass, godsucker&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

No, you dodged the question, as usual.

But I was wrong about one thing - you are ready to let the mask slip a little farther.

"flop on my belly before a couple of corpses (Lenin and Trotsky)" - if that&#39;s what you think of me, it must apply even more to whoever named this site "Che Lives".

So why didn&#39;t you tell them "Shove your icons up your ass, godsucker&#33;"? Probably because then you wouldn&#39;t get to be a moderator. And you do have to be a moderator, because if someone else was moderator they might call ya to order.

[redstar2000]

So why didn&#39;t you tell them "Shove your icons up your ass, godsucker&#33;"? Probably because then you wouldn&#39;t get to be a moderator. And you do have to be a moderator, because if someone else was moderator they might call ya to order.

This...after I carefully explained that you don&#39;t have to be a Guevara-ist to post here.

The reason I am a moderator (there are 20 or 30 of us...along with 4 administrators) is that I was asked to be one.

Since you have chosen to descend to this level, what are your motives?

How is posting here consistent with your party&#39;s (S.W.P.-U.S.) &#036;20,000,000 Manhattan real estate deal?

How has Trotskyism "paid off" for you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2004, 02:51 PM
Leninists refuse to even think of the possibility of straying away from the classical marxist theory giving it an almost religious edge and not much room for development.
I don&#39;t think leninism is classical marxism although i agree that leninists give it a &#39;religious edge.&#39; Lenin distorted Marx&#39;s writings to support his own ideas, in state and revolution he quotes letters marx sent in his desperate scramble to find a quote that he can take out of context and then distort to his advantage.

Marx believed that it was possible for the proletariat to sieze power before society was historicaly prepared for commuism but that it would be “only be a point in the process of the bourgeois revolution itself.” It&#39;s widely acknowledged that Russia in 1917 wasn&#39;t ready for communism and still maintained many feudalist qualities, perhaps the role of the bolshevik revolution was to clear the way for the bougoirsie. Marx certainly thought this of the Jacobin revolution in France of which he said;


By its bludgeon blows the Reign of Terror cleansed the surface of France, as if by a miracle, of all the feudal ruins. With its timorous caution, the bourgeoisie would not have managed this task in several decades. Therefore, the bloody acts of the people merely served to level the route of the bourgeoisie.

In hindsight this would appear to be the same role the USSR performed, although over a much longer period of time. The bolsheviks swept aside the remains of feudal society and industrialised Russia which is now dominated by the bougoirsie.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:59 PM

I don&#39;t think leninism is classical marxism although i agree that leninists give it a &#39;religious edge.&#39; Lenin distorted Marx&#39;s writings to support his own ideas, in state and revolution he quotes letters marx sent in his desperate scramble to find a quote that he can take out of context and then distort to his advantage.

Lovin&#39; it...This is a great quote&#33;&#33;&#33;


Marx believed that it was possible for the proletariat to sieze power before society was historicaly prepared for commuism but that it would be “only be a point in the process of the bourgeois revolution itself.” It&#39;s widely acknowledged that Russia in 1917 wasn&#39;t ready for communism and still maintained many feudalist qualities, perhaps the role of the bolshevik revolution was to clear the way for the bougoirsie.

I absolutly agree with you...