RE: Leninism & Vanguard

[Lamanov]

Thread with original elaboration: by Vanguard1917 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40000) [closed]



Anyway, back to original post.


1) This is true to a certain degree. Workers with 'higher' class consciousness are usualy the ones who are organized in trade unions and industrial committees. Their counsciousness is subjective to influence under outside pressure, but never it can be destroyed. Development of class counsciousness is always a product of economic-social development.

2-4) I have to disagree. Historic expirience is just screaming at us. It's important not to put these propositions in reverse: Political parties, workers' organizations, revolutionary syndicates - all of these are a product of economic class struggle. Without the massive proletarian struggle and organization - there can be no influencial "workers" party. It's been common so far that in all the revolutionary periods the most unorganized class elements with "low" class counsciousness are the ones to get active simply because they were driven to it not by party organization or agitation, but by economic necesity - as a result of economic struggle. It's exactly these mass actions which execute revolutionry missions up to their objective limit. On the other side, we have always more "counsciousness" and motivated element: the revolutionary party. But the problem with revolutionary party is this: party is not a class vanguard because it is not class consisted - that is to say - it's not an exclusive party for workers only. It's not a product of the class. Party leadership is always consisted of middle class inteligentsia which aims at helping the mass movement. Problem with the leninist conception of vanguard is that the party is though of as the "leader"; and as the forefront of the movement - and as such, consisted of non-working class elements -- it tends to loose site of objective conditions and mass intrests.

Historic example:

"Shortly before the revolution, the Bolsheviks made their position clear: "All power to the Soviets". Since the soviets were progressive representatives of the Russian masses, the Bolsheviks knew the Soviets would follow the Socialist path. In short course however, after the onset of the civil war, the Soviets were suppressed by both the Red and White Armies — their diversity was such that, at times they sympathised with either side." (from MIA glossary)

The reason for which soviets - as real representatives of the class - did not follow the "socialist path" is because mass action is always objective - it always follows the aims which can executed, and not an inch further. Objective conditions in Russia did not allow the "socilist path" - the development of socialism. Party thought otherwise and it had put itself in front and above the mass movement thinking it can help the masses to step few inches forward - more that they could. But the objective conditions did not alow that and the soviets were supressed by bueraucratic machinery and counter-revolution.

In revolutions - it's always the mass action which plays out a decisive role. Here - parties don't deserve a "place in the footnotes" (redstar2000) [nicely put]. The real vanguard of the class is not formed in revolutionary parties, but it is the active part of the masses themselves. The rank and file, soul of the mass action. When there's an interacion between economic and political struggle - masses activate and organize from the bottom upwards. They organize by themselves into their class organs which represent the real class vanguard with the highest objective class counsciousness.

Here's where I make out two types of "vanguards":

1 - class vanguard - most active part of proletariat. Their action is the product of mass action, and they always represent the class intrest of the masses - intrest which is always compatable with objective conditions.
2 - proletarianized vanguard - middle class inteligentsia, "proffesional revolutionaries", etc. They aim to help the revolutionary class, and they exist as a product of evident class struggle. On the one side, they aim to help the class in their struggle through agatation and proffesional assistance. On the other hand, they tend to assume and aspire to political leaderhip which strips them of objectivity and reality in direction. They can raise revolutionary class counsciousness in the class itself, but in reality they can never posses it.

5) In real world - it's other way around. JKP said "Spain '36". I say Paris '71.

Common question: who was the leader of October revolution? - Lenin, duh. Who was the leader of the Paris Commune? - **silence and confusion**.


I think it's about time we stop using the Russia model.

[guerrillache67]

---

[Connolly]

If you want to possibly create a premature, forced and unhistorical revolution then sure, choose the vanguard. But the truth of the matter is, Lenins revolution was a victim of its time and to say that the vanguard is needed for future "advanced" revolutions is a bit early to say the least. The structure of a natural progressive revolution from capitalism to socialism has yet to surface, basing its structure on the material conditions of its time. We can only assume, that as the conditions have changed since Lenins time, then so will the vanguard method have changed if it is needed at all.

[Donnie]

The problem with the Leninist organisations is that they don't create much class consciousness among the working class communities in the present system they prefer to debate within their own parties and so when something like a revolutionary spark kicks off in society they try to get hold of the working class and start spitting out ideas Leninist ideas like "you are only trade union conscious".

Another problem with Leninist organisation is the way there organised; its very much, “accept our decisions if you want to attain socialism”, this centralized workings within the party can create bitterness among the working class and can turn them over to reactionary forces.

[Led Zeppelin]

The vanguard theory should not even be disputed, since it's a historical fact that it works. Marxists look at historical facts and recognize them in their analysis, revisionists on the other hand ignore them.

Of course that is not to say that all vanguards are "good", actually today most vanguards are bad, this is because of ideological degeneration, not because of the vanguard theory. Anyone remember the second international? Instead of giving up on internationals and vanguards the Bolsheviks theoretically attacked (and destroyed) those degenerated vanguards and created a new international, this must be repeated by anti-revisionist vanguards today.

Maoism, Trotskyism, "Stalinism", left wing Communism and orthodox Marxism must be attacked and subsequently destroyed theoretically.

[Connolly]

The vanguard theory should not even be disputed, since it's a historical fact that it works

Its a historical fact in that it occured, but how can you claim that its a fact for it has not been tried in an advanced capitalist country, or if not, any country necessary to bring about true socialism world wide, of which is in the future? Something can not be historical fact unless it has been proven in the past, and since socialism is in the future, then the Vanguard method cannot an will not be considered correct and fact unless proven. It has only been proven in conditions much different than that of today, never mind the future.


Maoism, Trotskyism, "Stalinism", left wing Communism and orthodox Marxism must be attacked and subsequently destroyed theoretically.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Talk about kissing Lenins ass.

Marxism should not be fixed to one changless theory, but one that scientifically changes direction according to new discoveries and social conditions. Marxism is adaptable, and so the vanguard theory can be thrown out the window with historical progress if needed.

To say vanguardism is the only way forward without considering new possible solutions just shows how short sighted, closed minded and how much of a materialial victim you are. (I didnt mean that in a personal sort of way ;) )

[Led Zeppelin]

Marxism should not be fixed to one changless theory, but one that scientifically changes direction according to new discoveries and social conditions. Marxism is adaptable

Couldn't agree more, that is why I oppose all those ideologies I just mentioned, they are fixated to one position of Marxism, i.e., their position. Am I fixated to one position of Marxism? Not at all, why do I call myself a Marxist-Leninist if I was. Also, why do I oppose some of Lenin's theories if that were true? I don't care about "offending" dead theoreticians, I analyse history using the tools of Marxism-Leninism and tell the facts as they are, Marx was wrong, Lenin was wrong, Stalin was wrong, all of them were wrong on occasion, that does not mean you have to uphold their mistakes to be called a Marxist-Leninist.

Marxism-Leninism is a science, a science which can change on a daily basis.

[Connolly]

Couldn't agree more, that is why I oppose all those ideologies I just mentioned, they are fixated to one position of Marxism, i.e., their position. Am I fixated to one position of Marxism?


M-L wrote "The vanguard theory should not even be disputed" -- This sounds very rigid and fixated to me.


Marxism-Leninism is a science, a science which can change on a daily basis.

So if it can change on a daily basis, then why should the vanguard not be disputed? <_<

[Led Zeppelin]

M-L wrote "The vanguard theory should not even be disputed" -- This sounds very rigid and fixated to me.


Of course some parts of the theory must be fixated on, for example; proletarian revolution, historical and dialectical materialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the vanguard etc.

Because I include the vanguard in that category I call myself a Marxist-Leninist, instead of just a Marxist.


So if it can change on a daily basis, then why should the vanguard not be disputed?

Because it&#39;s a proven historical fact that it works, I don&#39;t feel like disputing proven historical facts, if you do then go ahead.

[Connolly]

Of course some parts of the theory must be fixated on, for example; proletarian revolution, historical and dialectical materialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the vanguard etc.

I see the way you include the vanguard in amongst the more historically correct and scientific elements of Marxism. M & H dialectics are the basis for Marxism. Proletarian Revolution and the Dictatorship are on this Base and have been compared and produced from previous forms of society, but, Vanguardism is a tactic of achieving intital goals, not based on previous evolutionary examples.


Because it&#39;s a proven historical fact that it works, I don&#39;t feel like disputing proven historical facts, if you do then go ahead.

As I said before, how can it be proven fact? if its goal of socalism is in the future. Please read my above posts again and more carefully.

[Led Zeppelin]

I see the way you include the vanguard in amongst the more historically correct and scientific elements of Marxism. M & H dialectics are the basis for Marxism. Proletarian Revolution and the Dictatorship are on this Base and have been compared and produced from previous forms of society, but, Vanguardism is a tactic of achieving intital goals, not based on previous evolutionary examples.


Yes it is, since you don&#39;t agree with me you are not a Marxist-Leninist, more like a orthodox Marxist, that&#39;s fine by me.


As I said before, how can it be proven fact? if its goal of socalism is in the future.

It&#39;s goal is to raise the consciousness of the masses and achieve proletarian revolution, it succeeded in doing so. Of course the ultimate aim is Communism, but that is post-revolution, we are discussing pre-revolution, post-revolution the vanguard has to be democratized after the material conditions for socialism have been built.

[Connolly]

Yes it is, since you don&#39;t agree with me you are not a Marxist-Leninist, more like a orthodox Marxist, that&#39;s fine by me.

No, not at all. I am a Marxist, that is all. And since, as you have agreed, Marxism adapts and changes to suit new discoveries and social conditions, I am not an orthodox Marxist but an adaptable one, open to new, more scientific and natural methods of achieving communism.


It&#39;s goal is to raise the consciousness of the masses and achieve proletarian revolution, it succeeded in doing so

Under different social conditions, unless you can predict in detail the social conditions of the future, right before a revolution - Which realistically cant be done at this time.

Let me just make this clear, I am not saying the Vanguard is not the way for the future, but I am not saying it is. What I am saying is that it is unpredictable at this stage. Any attempt to say "This is the method" is inaccurate, as we can not tell at this early stage of capitalist development. The only sort of person who would believe in it being accurate is a person who believes society is ripe currently for a socialist revolution, which it is not. Premature thinking.

[Led Zeppelin]

Any attempt to say "This is the method" is inaccurate, as we can not tell at this early stage of capitalist development.

Early stage of capitalist development? Capitalism is dying as we speak, imperialism is capitalism in decay.


The only sort of person who would believe in it being accurate is a person who believes society is ripe currently for a socialist revolution, which it is not.

Yes it is, I see you are one of those "Marxists" who want to wait for another century or so, go ahead, the proletariat will most certainly not.

80% of the worlds nations are ready for socialist revolution.

[Lamanov]

It&#39;s clear that M-L (and many others, unfortunately) has yet to learn the difference between the class vanguard (rank and file) and self-proclaimed "vanguardists" (party leadership).

We should recognize the difference on what the "vanguard" can and cannot do. It is true that "vanguard" as an outside element can raise class counsciousness (more-less), but that&#39;s about it. Asumption of political leadership might have been a seemingly "progressive" factor in the past (Russia), but I bet it will be nothing but regressive in the future mass movements, the ones comrade RedBanner is talking about.

It&#39;s best that we leave our "marxist-leninist" friend to his "theoretical destruction" of "left wing Communism and orthodox Marxism" with his "undesputed" vanguardist theory and leninist attacks on the "infantile disorder" of left communists.

In the mean time, we will watch how the workers spread the "infantile disorder" themselves.


It&#39;s about time we get serious people.

[Connolly]

Early stage of capitalist development? Capitalism is dying as we speak, imperialism is capitalism in decay.

So then, you believe that a radical change in the means of production has taken place has it? A change so great, that the economics and society, infact the world, has changed around it. A change that will revolutionise the masses and change production and distribution. What change in technological advancement is that?

I could go on about this but we are, believe me, not ready for revolution.


Capitalism is dying as we speak, imperialism is capitalism in decay.

Its only beginning, not decaying.


Yes it is, I see you are one of those "Marxists" who want to wait for another century or so, go ahead, the proletariat will most certainly not.

And I see you would like to see another premature soviet style dictatorship, without a true basis for socialism.


80% of the worlds nations are ready for socialist revolution

Really&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

You mean those living in poverty ready to follow any bandwagon to hopefull Freedom. Yeah right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Your " :lol: " smilies are really annoying.


So then, you believe that a radical change in the means of production has taken place has it? A change so great, that the economics and society, infact the world, has changed around it. A change that will revolutionise the masses and change production and distribution. What change in technological advancement is that?


Industrialization? Forgive me for being Marxist.


I could go on about this but we are, believe me, not ready for revolution.


Who is "we"? The US?


Its only beginning, not decaying.


No it isn&#39;t, it was beginning 100 years ago, today imperialism has taken over the world in the shape of neo-colonies, and it&#39;s trying to take the "last pieces" by way of military action (Irak, Afghanistan). When the bourgeois speak of "democracy in undemocratic states" they are in reality speaking of "free market in state capitalist states".

Free market equals being a neo-colony of imperialist states.


And I see you would like to see another premature soviet style dictatorship, without a true basis for socialism.


No, I would like to see another Soviet style state with a democratized Communist party, i.e., socialist state.


You mean those living in poverty ready to follow any bandwagon to hopefull Freedom. Yeah right.

Actually I was talking about new capitalist states like south-Africa, Iran, China, Thailand, Indonesia etc.

[Connolly]

:P
Your " " smilies are really annoying

That is the general idea. :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:


Industrialization? Forgive me for being Marxist.

I really dont like going away from the original post, but anyway

Industrialization is the capitalist mode of production. If you believe that production under socialism and then communism will remain the same, with manual workers manning the machines, driving the vehicals, cleaning the streets, driving the harvesters, milking the cows as it is today blah blah blah, then you are very, very short minded.
Socialism, then Communism can, and will come about only when clear and radical change becomes possible for the means of production and associated technologies. For example, full automation of machines, transport and really anything that can be automated. If we were to automate production, we would also need vast quantities of resources, eg.. energy, metals, food. We have not developed renewable energy yet, we have not developed near, if not total recycling of metals, plastics and paperetc. And, we have not developed sufficient labourless food production. All these gaps need to be filled by capitalism in its attempt to reduce labour, energy and material costs. These gaps, in our historical evolution, are not to be filled by socialism or communism but by capitalism, hence its historical purpose. I could go on about this, but you should firstly understand that capitalism isnt something thats bad and should be done away at any possible time, BUT something that is necessary for the advancement of humankind, and that needs to fullfill its historical purpose. This is why these petty forced attempts at socialism will actually slow the development of capitalist advancement.


Who is "we"? The US?

The global masses


No it isn&#39;t, it was beginning 100 years ago

WOW. A HUGE 100 YEARS. Thats actually not that long in terms of our evolution. A dimension based on 100 rotations of the earth around the sun.


and it&#39;s trying to take the "last pieces" by way of military action (Irak, Afghanistan)

No, not really capitalism on its final legs, rather the disappearance of the old form of production based on coal, oil gas in favour of the more capitalist friendly renewables, nothing dies without a fight.


No, I would like to see another Soviet style state with a democratized Communist party, i.e., socialist state.

where the means of production is based on oil, gas and coal. What happens when it runs out? Your whole Socialist paradise falls asunder.



Actually I was talking about new capitalist states like south-Africa, Iran, China, Thailand, Indonesia etc.

Which dont have sufficient renewable energy, technology, recycled metals to be considered any way advanced. They are still running on an invention 100 years ago, the steam engine----SOooooo advanced

If you call yourself a Marxist, then you should be able to see an unfolding of events based on the needs of capitalist progression - The development of &#39;free&#39; energy, automated production and &#39;free&#39; materials, all of which hasnt even been scraped in the most advanced capitalist countries > America>Britain>Ireland>Germany>France etc etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :P

[enigma2517]

The vanguard theory should not even be disputed, since it&#39;s a historical fact that it works.

Hahaha

I&#39;m not even going to bother responding to this one.

[Led Zeppelin]

Industrialization is the capitalist mode of production. If you believe that production under socialism and then communism will remain the same, with manual workers manning the machines, driving the vehicals, cleaning the streets, driving the harvesters, milking the cows as it is today blah blah blah, then you are very, very short minded.


I guess Marx was "short minded" too then, ok, i&#39;m short minded according to you, frankly I don&#39;t care what you think of me.


Socialism, then Communism can, and will come about only when clear and radical change becomes possible for the means of production and associated technologies.

Yes, we call that industrialization.

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers." Marx


For example, full automation of machines, transport and really anything that can be automated. If we were to automate production, we would also need vast quantities of resources, eg.. energy, metals, food. We have not developed renewable energy yet, we have not developed near, if not total recycling of metals, plastics and paperetc. And, we have not developed sufficient labourless food production. All these gaps need to be filled by capitalism in its attempt to reduce labour, energy and material costs. These gaps, in our historical evolution, are not to be filled by socialism or communism but by capitalism, hence its historical purpose. I could go on about this, but you should firstly understand that capitalism isnt something thats bad and should be done away at any possible time, BUT something that is necessary for the advancement of humankind, and that needs to fullfill its historical purpose. This is why these petty forced attempts at socialism will actually slow the development of capitalist advancement.


What are you talking about? Basically you are saying that capitalism must exist as long as it takes to "invent" a "renewable energy source". You seem to think that all scientific development will be halted with the advent of socialism, wrong assumption. Capitalism was progressive, now that it has turned into monopoly capital it is only halting scientific development, not furthering it.

"The history of capitalism generally begins with free competition; i.e. petty-bourgeois production), which naturally progresses to a concentration of production (bourgeois production), which continually strive towards monopolies (socialized production). Monopolies, being so contrary to the foundations of capitalism, are the greatest contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction rampant in the imperialist stage — for every business not only strives toward, but needs to dominate markets completely, to become a monopoly, while government must do everything it can to prevent this in order to survive, realising this social form of production ultimately destroys the capitalist system." Encyclopedia of Marxism


The global masses

So you are saying that the "global masses" will all revolt at the same time? That is like "super permanent revolution".


WOW. A HUGE 100 YEARS. Thats actually not that long in terms of our evolution. A dimension based on 100 rotations of the earth around the sun.


Capitalism has existed longer. Anyway it doesn&#39;t matter how long a historical stage has existed.


No, not really capitalism on its final legs, rather the disappearance of the old form of production based on coal, oil gas in favour of the more capitalist friendly renewables, nothing dies without a fight.


You have some kind of energy commodity fetish, "when the oil runs out capitalism dies", not gonna happen.


where the means of production is based on oil, gas and coal. What happens when it runs out? Your whole Socialist paradise falls asunder.


Who says new means of enery production will not be invented? Scientific development doesn&#39;t end with capitalism.


Which dont have sufficient renewable energy, technology, recycled metals to be considered any way advanced. They are still running on an invention 100 years ago, the steam engine----SOooooo advanced


Those nations are capitalist, only a capitalist nation with a sufficient proletarian class is necessary for revolution.


If you call yourself a Marxist, then you should be able to see an unfolding of events based on the needs of capitalist progression - The development of &#39;free&#39; energy, automated production and &#39;free&#39; materials, all of which hasnt even been scraped in the most advanced capitalist countries > America>Britain>Ireland>Germany>France etc etc.

Lay off the technology fetish.

[Severian]

It should probably be made clear at the outset that since this is a discussion of Leninism, not Stalinism, and since Stalinism is a political opposite of communism, Stalinists like "Marxist-Leninist" simply have no place in this discussion.

OK, I&#39;m going to respond to Vanguard1917&#39;s original post first:

1) In its nature, capitalist society creates different levels of consciousness within the working class. In times of class struggle, some workers possess high levels of class consciousness, some possess "medium" levels, and others, low levels.

Right, and this part of the reason a revolutionary party is needed.


2) The revolutionary party must bring together the most class conscious workers in order to lead the rest of the working class towards revolution. Through this, the collective level of class consciousness of the whole working class is raised.

Hm. Don&#39;t know. Revolutionary propaganda can definitely be conducted through other forms of organization; see the example of the pre-WWI all-inclusive Socialist Party. A centralized, disciplined party may be more effective for participating in mass struggles so as to raise class consciousness and lead it in a revolutionary direction, through transitional demands and so forth. But that&#39;s not the central reason it&#39;s needed.


3) In capitalist society, a mass party can, at best, only be a reformist party. In other words, allowing backward, non-class conscious workers into the party means bringing capitalist elements into the party.

The Bolsheviks were, I&#39;d argue, a mass revolutionary party, and probably some other parties of the early Communist International. The statement becomes true if you say "all-inclusive" rather than mass party.

But the problem there is not just admitting less-conscious workers; it&#39;s the unaccountable leadership.

The SPUSA provides a current example of something the Bolsheviks were always hammering on. This is a party with some subjectively revolutionary trends within it (Debs Caucus, maybe Direct Action Tendency) and the membership as a whole left enough to put up a presidential candidate in opposition to the Reps and Dems, who campaigned in "swing" as well as "safe" states by some accounts. Which is farther left than some - heck, most - groups claiming to be communist or Leninist in the U.S. today.

But then the likes of Dave McReynolds, perhaps the SP&#39;s most well-known member, and its candidate for Senate or something in New York, comes out and calls for a vote for "third-party" candidates only in "safe states". Mustn&#39;t do anything to hurt Kerry&#39;s chances, etc.

So even if the "all-inclusive" party manages to take some revolutionary position, it&#39;ll be undermined by its right wing which is not bound by any centralized party discipline.


4) Without the strong leadership of a revolutionary party, the working class as a whole will be more readily influenced by bourgeois leaders. If revolutionaries shy away from their duty to lead the movement, capitalist political forces will gladly fill the vacuum.

5) Hence, without a revolutionary workers&#39; party, there can be no revolutionary working class.

Dunno about that...but there can be no working-class revolution that takes power. That&#39;s really the core of why a Bolshevik-type party is needed. It&#39;s a necessary instrument through which the working class can take and wield power.

(The administration of governmental power, or the attempt to gain power and do so, is the function of (all classes&#39;) political parties generally, and what distinguishes them from other forms of organization which may participate in other forms of politics.)

Due to the uneven class-consciousness of the working class, and to the greater economic power, education, experience, and political self-confidence of the capitalist class...power will always "spontaneously" fall into the bosses hands unless there is a centralized revolutionary party which is determined to seek power.

Always has so far, anyway. And there&#39;s no shortage of examples.

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 3 2005, 02:37 PM
Historic expirience is just screaming at us.
Ah yes, the great historic experience that opponents of Leninism always cite. Maybe you could add to the discussion in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39826&st=20&#entry1291931067), or just explain what proletarian revolutions have taken place without centralized revolutionary parties, or why this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39987) is a "disaster" as opponents of Leninism often claim.


It&#39;s been common so far that in all the revolutionary periods the most unorganized class elements with "low" class counsciousness are the ones to get active

No, sorry, not always the case. Metalworkers were not exactly lagging behind throughout the Russian Revolution, for example.


simply because they were driven to it not by party organization or agitation, but by economic necesity - as a result of economic struggle.

Simplistic and mechanistic. Economic necessity alone does not lead anyone to revolt, or there would be a lot more revolts.


It&#39;s exactly these mass actions which execute revolutionry missions up to their objective limit.
...
The reason for which soviets - as real representatives of the class - did not follow the "socialist path" is because mass action is always objective - it always follows the aims which can executed, and not an inch further. Objective conditions in Russia did not allow the "socilist path" - the development of socialism.


Paragraphs moved around to bring the two halves of the argument together.

So did the spontaneous mass actions of the February Revolution "execute revolutionry missions up to their objective limit"? No.

Not even the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary mission. The Provisional Government dragged their feet on every aspect of that until it was overthrown.

Only the October Revolution - led by the Bolshevik Party - carried out even the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution.

It&#39;s only by completely ignoring these historic facts that you can completely mistake what "Historic expirience is just screaming at us."


On the other side, we have always more "counsciousness" and motivated element: the revolutionary party. But the problem with revolutionary party is this: party is not a class vanguard because it is not class consisted - that is to say - it&#39;s not an exclusive party for workers only. It&#39;s not a product of the class.

The last sentence doesn&#39;t follow from the rest.


Party leadership is always consisted of middle class inteligentsia which aims at helping the mass movement.

The great difference between the Bolshevik Party and other parties was, that it was working-class in leadership as well as membership. Yes, some individuals were from middle-class families. So what? Sociological origin is not decisive. Lenin wasn&#39;t exactly a practicing lawyer when he led the revolution.


Problem with the leninist conception of vanguard is that the party is though of as the "leader"; and as the forefront of the movement - and as such, consisted of non-working class elements -- it tends to loose site of objective conditions and mass intrests.

The Bolshevik Party was composed of non-working class elements? That&#39;s quite a leap from your earlier, more accurate statement that it wasn&#39;t exclusively working-class. In fact, most party members were workers.


Historic example:

"Shortly before the revolution, the Bolsheviks made their position clear: "All power to the Soviets". Since the soviets were progressive representatives of the Russian masses, the Bolsheviks knew the Soviets would follow the Socialist path. In short course however, after the onset of the civil war, the Soviets were suppressed by both the Red and White Armies — their diversity was such that, at times they sympathised with either side." (from MIA glossary)

The MIA is full of bitter ex-Leninists, or ex-pseudo-Leninists. That&#39;s an inaccurate statement. The Soviets were not suppressed by the Red Army....the became increasing all-Bolshevik as other parties walked out of them (beginning while the Winter Palace was still besieged&#33;), went over the armed counterrevolution, and were suppressed....if you want someone to blame for the growing sterile homogeneity of the Soviets, blame those who walked out of them.


Party thought otherwise and it had put itself in front and above the mass movement thinking it can help the masses to step few inches forward - more that they could. But the objective conditions did not alow that and the soviets were supressed by bueraucratic machinery and counter-revolution.

You would prefer that the masses had been suppressed by some Kornilov or Pinochet type?

No, the Bolsheviks didn&#39;t lead the October insurrection because they wanted to push the revolution a "few inches forward" - they did it because otherwise, there wouldn&#39;t be a revolution at all&#33;

And they gave a mighty push to the world revolutionary mass movement. Which was crushed, leading to the results in Russia we all know.

And? So? It&#39;s wrong to ever go into battle because you might lose? It&#39;s wrong to ever take power because you might not be able to hold it? That&#39;s the logical conclusion of what you&#39;re saying here.

But as the Second Declaration of Havana said, "The role of Job does not suit a revolutionist. The task of a revolutionist is to make the revolution."


In revolutions - it&#39;s always the mass action which plays out a decisive role. Here - parties don&#39;t deserve a "place in the footnotes" (redstar2000) [nicely put].

That&#39;s more historical falsification....and to put the icing on the cake, you&#39;re quoting someone who&#39;s trained in the Stalinist school of falsification, and has rejected Leninism (which he never accepted) while retaining the basics of the Stalinist approach.


The real vanguard of the class is not formed in revolutionary parties, but it is the active part of the masses themselves. The rank and file, soul of the mass action. When there&#39;s an interacion between economic and political struggle - masses activate and organize from the bottom upwards. They organize by themselves into their class organs which represent the real class vanguard with the highest objective class counsciousness.

And when that real vanguard is organized into a party, as in Russia 1917, it can take power. Not otherwise. Please, give me a counterexample.


5) In real world - it&#39;s other way around. JKP said "Spain &#39;36". I say Paris &#39;71.

Common question: who was the leader of October revolution? - Lenin, duh. Who was the leader of the Paris Commune? - **silence and confusion**.

Auguste Blanqui - unfortunately he was in jail, which contributed to the vacillation, hesitation, and eventual defeat of the Paris Commune.

Other Blanquists held the majority on the Paris Commune&#39;s leadership bodies.

It&#39;s bizarre that you&#39;d hold up the Paris Commune as better than the October Revolution, almost as bizarre as the anarchists continuing to regard as a positive example - a revolution that was crushed by fascism&#33;

Do you remember what happened after the fall of the Paris Commune? Do you wish its fate on other revolutions? Then why advocate its course?

Marx didn&#39;t....he criticized that course, that hesitation and vacillation....which resulted from the lack of a firm revolutionary leadership.

[Vanguard1917]

Thanks for the replies.

DJ-TC, i agree with Severian when he says that your approach is mechanistic. You make the same mistake as Redstar (by the way, where is he?) in the way that you separate "economic conditions" from all the other social factors that are involved in the revolutionary process. Marxists see things dialectically. We look for interconnections and contradictions in the way we study society as a totality, how certain things influence other things. This was the major achievement of Lenin and Bolshevik tradition that he was part of. At a time when the "economist" Marxists and others were vulgarising Marxism, Lenin emphasised the subjective factors that are necessary for the socialist transformation of society: the party, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and politics in general.

Here&#39;s a good quote from the late British socialist Tony Cliff. I think it explains the dialectical relationship quite well. (I&#39;m going out of my way to type it, so it better get read :) ):

"Marx stated that the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class. At the same time he also stated the the prevailing ideas in every society are the ideas of the ruling class. There is a contradiction between these two statements, not in Marx&#39;s head but in social reality. If not for this contradiction, the transition to socialism would be either effortless or impossible. If the first statement were exclusively correct then the transition to socialism would be effortless. The millions of workers would be united against their tiny ruling class. In the second case socialism would never come because workers would be prisoners of bourgeois ideas.

Because of these contadictions the class struggle - the struggle between workers and capitalists - expresses itself in the struggle between workers and workers. Some workers are more class-conscious and courageous, others are more backward and submissive to the capitalists. The picket line is not aimed to stop capitalists from working; they never work when there is no strike; they won&#39;t start working during the strike. Workers on the picket line are fighting workers who are, or might become, scabs. If not for this contradiction there would be no need for revolution, civil war, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. If all workers were united in support of socialism there would be no need for revolutionary violence: if all workers spat at the capitalists at the same time they would drown them.

It is precisely in the uneven consciousness of workers, in the sectionalism that bedevils the unity of the class, that the need for a vanguard party lies, according to Lenin."

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)>>That&#39;s the logical conclusion of what you&#39;re saying here.<<[/b]

To be honest - I was quite taken by your posts and rather confused - as if you were criticizing someone else. I had to read my original post in order to to see what exactly I was talking about. And then a de-ja-vu hit me:

Instead of searching for holes in my text, I suggest you start looking at their "mechanics". You (Severian), again, are entering into a discourse with a very negative aproach which tends to drag it into a very unproductive course in which everyone has to explain &#39;what he ment&#39; because of common missunderstanding (like Vanguard1917).

In example:


Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)>>You make the same mistake ... in the way that you separate "economic conditions" from all the other social factors that are involved in the revolutionary process.<<[/b]

Here I have to emphasize the obvious against this really grotesque missunderstanding: I do not separate objective and subjective, economic and political - excuse me, but only an idiot could do that: I emphasize the objective and economic infront of all others as a basis, for without these - subjective and political do not exists. Objective economic factors - as the social dynamics and structural basis - are the most important ones. No subjective force, the party, the right way etc. cannot make up for a huge lack of these.

Please don&#39;t try to analyze my views if you can&#39;t do it right. It ain&#39;t nice.


Originally posted by Severian
>>Economic necessity alone does not lead anyone to revolt, or there would be a lot more revolts.<<

Well, I agree. How come? Because you quoted and commented half of my sentence. I was takling about some layers of unorganized workers.
Infact, there are alot of "revolts" - but they&#39;re isolated so usualy they end up as partial wage struggles and get silenced by trade-union bureaucrts.

And this is where political struggle kicks in: this is what I ment when I said that without no economic class struggle there is no influencial revolutionary party.

Those 3 words in my signature ("educate, agitate, activate") are not there for nothing.

I never said that vanguard doesn&#39;t exist and that its role doesn&#39;t matter. I&#39;m not saying that everything Lenin said should esentially be discarded as wrong just because Lenin said it. But what worked for semi feudal Russia 100 years ago does not work today for the world.
One of the reasons for our impotence is exactly the faith in obsolete formulas.

First clarity - then unity


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
>>Marxists see things dialectically. ... Lenin emphasised the subjective factors that are necessary for the socialist transformation of society: the party, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and politics in general.<<

No shit? So how come subjective factors don&#39;t apply that much today as they did in Russia?
Exactly because they&#39;re subjective and it&#39;s time to get them in sync&#39; with reality and objective conditions.

You both have to get it in your head that I don&#39;t "prefer that the masses had been suppressed by some Kornilov or Pinochet type" - this is infact very offensive remark. But when Soviets lose power to central non-democratic authority, "expert" committees and to a workers&#39; party which leaders are not workers and which is losing its democratic principles - it makes you wonder what the hell is going on.


Originally posted by Severian
>>Not even the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary mission. The Provisional Government dragged their feet on every aspect of that until it was overthrown.

Only the October Revolution - led by the Bolshevik Party - carried out even the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution.<<

Exactly. Today, looking at 1917 - 1989 Russia that exactly what comes to my head when I think about the primary nature of the October revolution.

History is screaming... let&#39;s listen to it.


>>The last sentence doesn&#39;t follow from the rest.<<

You&#39;re right. I should correct myself: it&#39;s a product of class struggle, but not of workers alone.


>>Yes, some individuals were from middle-class families. So what? Sociological origin is not decisive.
...
The Bolshevik Party was composed of non-working class elements? That&#39;s quite a leap from your earlier, more accurate statement that it wasn&#39;t exclusively working-class. In fact, most party members were workers.<<

Ahh&#33; Again?&#33; "...and as such, consisted of non-working class elements -- it tends to loose site of objective conditions and mass intrests." I&#39;m talking about it&#39;s leadership.

The fact that party leadership is middle class and that party is mostly consisted of workers (but not in the leading sector) is the primary reason for which it should maintain its democratic principles at all cost (which it didn&#39;t). Lenin - in his famous Letter to the Party - asks the central committee to include in their membership 50-100 workers directly from production as full rights members. This was exactly his own typical way of trying to fix up things when it gets too late. But the soul fact that he tried to do it confirms my claim that "leader party" tends to lose its democratic and worker character. Problem is - he should have done that earlier (October 1917 would have been good enough).

If we are not willing to admit that Lenin made mistakes, and that we have to correct them -- we&#39;re fucked.


>>...if you want someone to blame for the growing sterile homogeneity of the Soviets, blame those who walked out of them.<<

Peasants (SRs) and petty-bourgeois (Mensheviks) ? I won&#39;t really - socialist revolution is of no intrest to them.


>>That&#39;s more historical falsification....
...
And when that real vanguard is organized into a party, as in Russia 1917, it can take power. Not otherwise. Please, give me a counterexample.<<

"In revolutions - it&#39;s always the mass action which plays out a decisive role." - Historical falsification? Workers&#39; power is manifested and organized into councils/soviets, not in solo capture of the winter palace. It&#39;s exactly mass action which organized soviets in 1905 and february 1917 (yes, with the help of agitation, I agree). Lets not mix up our priorities.


>>Do you remember what happened after the fall of the Paris Commune? Do you wish its fate on other revolutions? Then why advocate its course?<<

Don&#39;t be ridiculous and ask me such questions. French workers gave their best and still they maintained the democratic principle. What they couldn&#39;t do then we will be able to do tomorrow.


>>Marx didn&#39;t....he criticized that course, that hesitation and vacillation<<

Don&#39;t compare capitalist France and semi-feudal Russia. Marx didn&#39;t....


[email protected]
>>....which resulted from the lack of a firm revolutionary leadership.<<


Stalin
>>Command is the main element in the dictatureship of the proletariat, if we have at least more solid dictatureship, and not like the one in the Paris Commune, which wasn&#39;t a solid dictatureship<<

It&#39;s rather easy to accuse someone of stalinism, isn&#39;t it? Don&#39;t do it.

[Connolly]

I know the discussion has progressed, but this is in reply to M-L.

PLEASE M-L, NO MORE OF THIS SHIT.

Im really getting pissed off with this. Technology is absalutly fundamental to the understanding of Marx you twit. If you are to talk about the means of production then you must talk about the technology involved. This is the last time im going to explain. Dont get it, then tuff, maybe someday you will learn.


I guess Marx was "short minded" too then, ok, i&#39;m short minded according to you, frankly I don&#39;t care what you think of me.

These are not really personal attacks, but attacks on your understanding of modern Marxism.


Yes, we call that industrialization.

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers." Marx

OOooh, whos the orthodox Marxist now?

Marx is so outdated when it comes to the methods of production, so much so, that he thought his era was advanced production :lol: . And you are also outdated to think your time is advanced. Could he have predicted the capability to totally automate production and eliminate the worker? No. So much has changed since then.
Your lack of understanding about Marxism is frightening.

Let me brief and simply put to you the modes of production and their advancement ,all based on technological improvements.

(1) Feudal mode of production: - individual production, limited agricultural production, scattered populous, decentralized, sparse distribution. (of course limited by technology)

(2) Steam engine is invented. (new form of production becomes available, reactionary elements hold it back. Revolution of the gaining class(es) needed and comes to advance means of production)

(3) In comes capitalist mode of production also called INDUSTRIALIZATION/URBANIZATION (YOU ARE HERE :rolleyes: ) : - mass production, socialization of production, mass mechanized agricultural production, motorized transport, socialization of distribution, manual labour required.

The logical outcome:

Now, because of the capitalist modes need for wage labour and its need to maintain value on a commodity produced, it will attempt to hold back technological advancement. But, humans being humans, we cant discard advancement and so capitalism becomes obsolete. Keep in mind we are at the stage of industrialization.


(4) Sufficient technology is developed to totally, if not near, automate production, distribution and other necessary services, thereby, eliminating the worker/labourer.(new form of production becomes available, reactionary elements hold it back(capitalists). Revolution of the gaining class (workers) is needed and comes to advance the means of production)

After this comes the socialism, then communism. The production potential of humanity is finally reached. The conditions of living is bettered with automation.

So you now know that technology and the means of production cannot just be ignored in Marxism, but is fundamental and very, very important.

If you have followed and agree with the logical outcome, then you should also agree that todays industrial development is not so advanced as you may think. The logical role of capitalism is to fill the role of renewable energy, material and the "automatic worker to an extent" As I have said before, to decrease costs and maintain profit. All of which has not set deep in place, but it is getting deeper.


What are you talking about? Basically you are saying that capitalism must exist as long as it takes to "invent" a "renewable energy source". You seem to think that all scientific development will be halted with the advent of socialism, wrong assumption. Capitalism was progressive, now that it has turned into monopoly capital it is only halting scientific development, not furthering it.

I hope what I said above has answered this, but if not, for the final time -

Capitalism must exist as long as technology requires it to. It must complete its historical purpose. To stop it now is like to stop/advance feudalism without the steam engine being invented. Its premature. Society is based around its ability to sustain itself, or, the means of production. No. Socialism will not halt advancement, but it will not come unless advancement under the capitalist system is made. Capitalism is still progressive for a number of reasons.

(1) It is in the capitalists best interests to develop renewable energy and material to further profit. (the use of fossil fuel and wars for fossil fuel are simply reactionary elements of the capitalist class. Which are not to be confused with "capitalism on its last legs") It is not necessary for socialism to bring about renewables.

(2) It is also in the capitalists best interestes to develop automation of the workforce. This is ongoing and continues to increase by the day, although huge amounts of the workforce still remain "manual".

(3) All the cheap labour markets have yet to be exploited, no thanks to the reactionary attempts at socialism (China). When they have been totally "used up", then the impoverishment of the capitalists domestic labour will begin. Far from what it is today, with the workers here more interested in what score a soccar match was.

(4) Sufficient technology has not been developed to completely automate services nd distribution. Yet to be completed by capitalism, also in its attempt to reduce labour costs and increased competition amongst multinationals.

(5) The total socialization of distribution has not happened yetthough happening rapidly with the giants like Tesco crushing the local stores like centra and of course the individual shopkeeper.

(6) Total socialization of production has not occurred yetthough more socialized than the means distribution, much is still produced on a small scale under small workforces.

(7) You are mistaken about total monopoly. There is still large scale competition amongst for example car giants GM and Mercedes. Near total monopoly would be expected before socialism. Although some sectors have been totally monopolized eg, Microsoft.

(8) Other factors that could prove capitalism to be progressive although I cant think of hem right now.

To argue that capitalism is not progressive in most areas is stupid. Only a person who 1. Dosnt understand Marxism and human development and 2. Is a communist/Anarchist +dosnt understand reasons for some reactions taken by the capitalist class, would say such athing. I am not in favour of capitalism, I think its a horrible wasteful system of both life and material, but will certainly not say its regressive. Its just a necessary evil.


So you are saying that the "global masses" will all revolt at the same time? That is like "super permanent revolution".

Dont ask silly questions otherwise you will get a silly reply. :rolleyes:


Capitalism has existed longer. Anyway it doesn&#39;t matter how long a historical stage has existed

Your the one who brought time up, not me.


You have some kind of energy commodity fetish, "when the oil runs out capitalism dies", not gonna happen.

Blah Blah blah................ read above please.


Those nations are capitalist, only a capitalist nation with a sufficient proletarian class is necessary for revolution.

Yeah, premature revolution. Advanced means of production is needed for socialist revolution.


Lay off the technology fetish.

If you still stick by that quotation then you havnt a clue about Marxism, you will have proved how stubborn, Ignorant and capitalist minded you are. Otherwise, fairplay for your understanding and mental development, far greater that most on earth have ever got.

Just reply with an agree, disagree post and leave it there. We have already brought the topic way off course wont you agree. And I really dont want to continue going around in circles with you. <_<

[Vanguard1917]

DJ-TC, you still haven&#39;t addressed the key problem. How is revolutionary class consciousness supposed to come about in capitalist society? "Objectively", capitalism necessarily creates false consciousness. And, yet, like Redstar, you keep claiming that everything is down to "objective conditions". As I said before about Redstar, you talk of "objective conditions" like a Christian that talks of Fate. I&#39;m talking about the history-making potential of revolutionaries. And the party is the medium for this - an organisation containing the most revolutionary elements within society. Of course certain conditions give way to certain types of degerate parties - Stalinist, reformist, chauvanist, etc. But my point is: these are not just down to "objective conditions" - subjectivity plays an equally determining role. The level of class consciousness in capitalist society is a subjective problem.

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 6 2005, 08:14 AM
Instead of searching for holes in my text, I suggest you start looking at their "mechanics".

I have no idea what you mean by that.

But sometimes your posts are simply hard to understand.


Here I have to emphasize the obvious against this really grotesque missunderstanding: I do not separate objective and subjective, economic and political - excuse me, but only an idiot could do that: I emphasize the objective and economic infront of all others as a basis, for without these - subjective and political do not exists. Objective economic factors - as the social dynamics and structural basis - are the most important ones. No subjective force, the party, the right way etc. cannot make up for a huge lack of these.

Are you calling Redstar an idiot? You quoted him favorably before.


I never said that vanguard doesn&#39;t exist and that its role doesn&#39;t matter. I&#39;m not saying that everything Lenin said should esentially be discarded as wrong just because Lenin said it. But what worked for semi feudal Russia 100 years ago does not work today for the world.

See, this is where you - and Redstar - fall into self-contradiction, and stubbornly refuse to explain or resolve it. Sometimes you say that the Bolsheviks were wrong, pushed things too far, etc. Then other times you say that it worked at that time and place, or Redstar says Leninism is OK for ignorant Third World peasants. (Though really he applies this to Maoism, and remains hostile to Leninism in the Third World as well.)

Because in your last post you said:

The reason for which soviets - as real representatives of the class - did not follow the "socialist path" is because mass action is always objective - it always follows the aims which can executed, and not an inch further. Objective conditions in Russia did not allow the "socilist path" - the development of socialism. Party thought otherwise and it had put itself in front and above the mass movement thinking it can help the masses to step few inches forward - more that they could

That&#39;s pretty clearly saying the Bolsheviks were wrong to lead the October Revolution because the objective conditions didn&#39;t allow for socialism. Which is a Menshevik position, not remotely a Luxemburgist one. Rosa Luxemburg was enthusiastic about the October Revolution and made the opposite criticism of the Bolsheviks - she thought they were wrong to adopt bourgeois-democratic policies like "land to the tiller" and "self-determination for oppressed nations."

Now you&#39;re just backpedaling &#39;cause you got called on it, and for whatever reason don&#39;t want to defend that Menshevik statement.

If you want to point to mistakes you think Lenin made, fine. If you want to point out the Russian Revolution isn&#39;t a model for anyplace else and involved all kinds of aspects that shouldn&#39;t be repeated, fine...heck, on that I agree.

But that&#39;s not what you said in your last post. You said the Bolsheviks were wrong on the one point where IMO they were absolutely, 100% right. The one point where the October Revolution is an example - not a model - for the whole world to follow.

Their insistence on working people taking power - the "socialist path" not the bourgeois liberal path.

As Rosa Luxemburg said:
Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.

What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: "I have dared&#33;"

This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to "Bolshevism."
link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm)

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve read that. And you describe yourself as a Spartacist. But the attitude you expressed in your last post has far more in common with the attitude of the "German Government Socialists" than that of Rosa Luxemburg.


Workers&#39; power is manifested and organized into councils/soviets, not in solo capture of the winter palace.

What solo capture? It wasn&#39;t the armed wing of the Bolshevik Party which took the Palace, because there wasn&#39;t one to speak of. It was military units under the Petrograd Soviet&#39;s Military Revolutionary Committee...and nonparty Red Guard units organized in the factories and sponsored by the factory committees, usually.

Why are you counterposing the organization to soviets to the October insurrection and the capture of the Winter Palace - which were carried out through the soviets and the Bolsheviks&#39; mass support among the workers and soldiers?

And here we seem to be finding that ol&#39; opposition to the October Revolution again, huh?


It&#39;s rather easy to accuse someone of stalinism, isn&#39;t it? Don&#39;t do it.

Hmmm...because some accusations of Stalinism are false, therefore no accusations of Stalinism should be made? Something fishy about the reasoning there.

Stalinism shared the Menshevik thesis that it was wrong for the Bolsheviks to take power because the objective conditions required a bourgeois revolution, which they interpreted to mean a bourgeois-led revolution.

It&#39;s just that the Stalinists only applied this to other countries, and didn&#39;t explicitly re-apply it back onto the Russian Revolution. Redstar, coming out of some Maoist group, simply draws this final logical conclusion from Stalinist theory.

The Menshevik-Stalinist two-stage approach to revolution (bourgeoisie first) is one of the most fundamental elements of Stalinism as the expression of privileged bureaucratic caste interests, seeking an accomodation with world capitalism. Far more fundamental, actually, than advocacy of "command" or an iron fist and so forth.

[Led Zeppelin]

Just reply with an agree, disagree post and leave it there. We have already brought the topic way off course wont you agree. And I really dont want to continue going around in circles with you.

Disagree.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)>>DJ-TC, you still haven&#39;t addressed the key problem. How is revolutionary class consciousness supposed to come about in capitalist society?<<[/b]

Yes I have. I stated that primary purpose of the vanguard is to spread insight and propaganda. If you wanna help someone to form a revolutionary counsiousness - there you have it - the means to do it. On the other hand - political leadership belongs to democratic mass action and organization.

I&#39;ve aslo stated that: "Asumption of political leadership might have been a seemingly "progressive" factor in the past (Russia), but I bet it will be nothing but regressive in the future mass movements".


>>And, yet, like Redstar, you keep claiming that everything is down to "objective conditions". <<

I really can&#39;t tell what redstar2000 makes out of "objective conditions", but I can speak for myself: I don&#39;t claim that "everything is down" to them. You state that because you don&#39;t even try to understand what I&#39;m talking about. You only turn your defence mechanism on soon as you someone starts to question validity of political formulas in contemporary conditions, and start to atack with unbased accusations.

"I emphasize the objective and economic infront of all others as a basis, for without these - subjective and political do not exists. Objective economic factors - as the social dynamics and structural basis - are the most important ones. No subjective force, the party, the right way etc. cannot make up for a huge lack of these." [me]

Objective conditions are a product of a structural basis and social dynamics, and as such their basis can&#39;t be affected, only destroyed. We can act only within the limits imposed by social structure, and we can only destroy the structure if objective conditions permit such action. In Russia 1917, conditions were unripe, but in more developed world they could have supported this transformation.

It were exactly objective conditions which drove the Russian proletariat to the "state of revolution", and which made them organize into soviets through spontaneous action. Without these, vanguardist action wouldn&#39;t mean anything. But it were exactly these objective conditions which made a stalinist counter-revolution a necesity for isolated Russia.

"In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia." [Rosa Luxemburg] Perfect conclusion.


Severian: I really don&#39;t care about your beef with redstar2000, but still, you occupated half of your responce to me with it.


Severian
>>And here we seem to be finding that ol&#39; opposition to the October Revolution again, huh?<<


>>Why are you counterposing the organization to soviets to the October insurrection...<<


>>But the attitude you expressed in your last post has far more in common with the attitude of the "German Government Socialists" than that of Rosa Luxemburg.<<

What the fuck? :huh: You do realize your accusations have absolutely no basis.


>>...and stubbornly refuse to explain or resolve it. Sometimes you say that the Bolsheviks were wrong, pushed things too far, etc. ...<<

"Pushed things too far" ? That can mean anything - so explain what does that mean? What exactly did I say?


>>Then other times you say that it worked at that time and place...<<

What did? Suggestion: if you want to paraphrase me do it right. Or just quote me.


>>...she thought they were wrong to adopt bourgeois-democratic policies like "land to the tiller" and "self-determination for oppressed nations."<<

Just that? Those two are nothing compared to suppression of public life and the restrictions upon the self-activity of the masses. Those two are a product of an assumption that vanguard is supposed to assume political leadership in the revolution. Aren&#39;t they leninist? Yes they are.

[Please don&#39;t say that they&#39;re stalinist. Stalinist just went from there and formed an assumption that the party is the soul leader of the revolution because it posseses the "objective truth", and as such it cannot be questioned. I&#39;m not comparing these two because in the leninist conception of the vanguard democracy still stands for something.]


>>If you want to point to mistakes you think Lenin made, fine. If you want to point out the Russian Revolution isn&#39;t a model for anyplace else and involved all kinds of aspects that shouldn&#39;t be repeated, fine...heck, on that I agree.<<

Great. Progress.


>>Now you&#39;re just backpedaling &#39;cause you got called on it, and for whatever reason don&#39;t want to defend that Menshevik statement.<<

No. If I lived there and then I would probably call for the revolution and walk side by side with the bolsheviks, because, just like them, I would share a hope about the success of the revolution in the West. Even now, when I know what we know today, I would join them. Just as Luxemburg said: they dared. October triggered a revolutionry wave all across Europe and stopped the war. It almost resulted in a world revolution.

But I probably wouldn&#39;t support non of the authoritarian and bueraucratic policies later on. Would you? I would insist on re-introduction of democracy, collective management and mass self activity, opposed to "centralist" politics of the party. Wouldn&#39;t you? I wouldn&#39;t compromise just like I don&#39;t compromise today, and probably I would get kicked out for the spread of "infantile disorder"... but what would you do?

Rosa Luxemburg is not criticizing just simple slogans. There&#39;s much more to it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 7 2005, 11:55 AM
What did? Suggestion: if you want to paraphrase me do it right. Or just quote me.
I did. here it is again:


The reason for which soviets - as real representatives of the class - did not follow the "socialist path" is because mass action is always objective - it always follows the aims which can executed, and not an inch further. Objective conditions in Russia did not allow the "socilist path" - the development of socialism. Party thought otherwise and it had put itself in front and above the mass movement thinking it can help the masses to step few inches forward - more that they could

What do you mean they were "thinking it can help the masses to step few inches forward - more that they could"? Which actions were a "few inches forward" too far? The only one that came to mind for me was the October insurrection, which you keep describing as a "solo" or "vanguard" action, and you haven&#39;t explained differently. Perhaps I misunderstood, but if so I think it was a reasonable misunderstanding.



>>...she thought they were wrong to adopt bourgeois-democratic policies like "land to the tiller" and "self-determination for oppressed nations."<<

Just that? Those two are nothing compared to suppression of public life and the restrictions upon the self-activity of the masses. Those two are a product of an assumption that vanguard is supposed to assume political leadership in the revolution.

You&#39;re entitled to that opinion. But I was describing Rosa Luxemburg&#39;s. She certainly didn&#39;t think her disagreements on the land and national questions were "nothing," since she spent considerable space on them in that article, the main criticism she ever made of Boshevik policies in power. There was also considerable polemic between the Luxemburgists, like Radek, and the Bolsheviks over these questions before the revolution.

And regardless of how important you think they are, it remains true that her rejection of bourgeois-democratic measures runs in the opposite direction from your point that the objective conditions allowed nothing but a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

I agree with her...that those are important questions. And Luxemburg-ist policies on both were disastrous where they were tried, by the abortive Soviet Lithuanian government, during the Soviet-Polish war, somewhat similar policies were applied in Hungary...

We can&#39;t say the German Communist Party was able to "follows the aims which can executed, and not an inch further" either. That is, they lacked the Bolshevik&#39;s accurate tactical sense. Though that can&#39;t mostly be blamed on Luxemburg or her theories, more on the inexperience of the party....but the point remains, that the Russian Revolution won and the German Revolution was crushed. The German Revolution had more favorable conditions, and Soviet Russia as ally and inspiration&#33;...but the Russian Revolution had a more experienced vanguard party to lead it, built up in advance of the revolution. Can you come up with a better explanation for those events.

As for whether "suppression of public life and the restrictions upon the self-activity of the masses"..."are a product of an assumption that vanguard is supposed to assume political leadership in the revolution". Luxemburg didn&#39;t think that either. I think she explained the real causes pretty well:

Yes, dictatorship&#33; But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.
....
The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion -- in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.

I agree with all that...except that I think the Bolsheviks were perfectly aware that all these repressive measures were at best necessary evils...they were just aware that other revolutions were likely not going to face an easy road either. And that their own initial lack of ruthlessness often cost the revolution and the toilers dearly. They wanted other revolutions to avoid that error.

A positive example - under their circumstances - was the Cuban Revolution IMO. They carried out a sharp, ruthless terror against Batistianos immediately after taking power...and haven&#39;t had to do a lot of executions since.


But I probably wouldn&#39;t support non of the authoritarian and bueraucratic policies later on. Would you?

I think that how much repression is necessary....is a tactical question. Impossible to definitely answer long-distance. With the benefit of historical hindsight, we&#39;re more of the dangers of excessive repression. So yeah, I might also tend to come down more on the less-repressive side of the scale.

But the Bolsheviks can&#39;t be blamed for their lack of 20-20 hindsight.


I would insist on re-introduction of democracy, collective management and mass self activity, opposed to "centralist" politics of the party. Wouldn&#39;t you?

I&#39;d be for more workers&#39; democracy, yes...but I wouldn&#39;t counterpose that to the party or centralization. In fact, the most burning need was for more democracy within the party....the historical fact is, when the most conscious part of the working class, organized in the Communist Party, was defeated in its attempts to fight growing bureaucratism, the rest of the class didn&#39;t even put up much of a fight. Little more than passive sympathy.

In fact, the Stalinist faction engineered the mass admission of large numbers of less-conscious, politically inactive workers as a way of drowning the Left Opposition.


Rosa Luxemburg is not criticizing just simple slogans. There&#39;s much more to it.

Oh yes, there&#39;s much more to it. The criticism of those slogans is the criticism of a whole course of carrying through the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the end. A course that was massively successful, particularly in those respects where Luxemburg attempts to criticize it.

For example, the fact that some parts of the former Russian Empire split away under capitalist regimes, which she holds up as a failure of Bolshevik nationality policy. What&#39;s remarkable is that this happened in so few places. A vast, heterogenous prison-house of nations, where the ruling nationality was a minority, is defeated in a devastating war and undergoes a sudden, wrenching social transformation. And it mostly holds together&#33;

Contrast that to the total dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires around the same time.

It was the Bolsheviks nationality policy which made this success possible...as any number of modern bourgeois historians, even, acknowledge, in tracing the course of the Civil War. The Bolsheviks won the support of the oppressed nationalities, especially in contrast to the Whites&#39; Russian chauvinism.

Really, I can&#39;t think of any other revolution in history that involved the active participation of people from so many different nationalities. Not even close.


It were exactly objective conditions which drove the Russian proletariat to the "state of revolution", and which made them organize into soviets through spontaneous action. Without these, vanguardist action wouldn&#39;t mean anything.

Sure. That&#39;s not disputed by anyone at all that I&#39;m aware of.

But without the "vanguardist" October insurrection...the soviets and the mass spontaneous action could not have taken power. Eventually the mass movement ebbs, through disillusionment and disappointment at all the talk and no action, and is eventually crushed by some Kornilov or other. It&#39;s happened again and again...where there is no revolutionary party.

It takes both mass action, mass organization in soviets or something similar...and a Bolshevik-type party.


No. If I lived there and then I would probably call for the revolution and walk side by side with the bolsheviks, because, just like them, I would share a hope about the success of the revolution in the West. Even now, when I know what we know today, I would join them. Just as Luxemburg said: they dared. October triggered a revolutionry wave all across Europe and stopped the war. It almost resulted in a world revolution.

And without the Bolshevik Party, no October. As you seem to acknowledge by calling it a "vanguardist" action. So if you support the October Revolution, why oppose one of its necessary conditions?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)>>....but the point remains, that the Russian Revolution won and the German Revolution was crushed.<<[/b]

You don&#39;t get it, do you (I&#39;m bit cranky today, I failed on my psychology exam ;) )? When soviets lost power, when masses lost capacity, will and determination - and most of all - chance for self-activity - revolution was dead. Russian Revolution "won"?? Well, it did "win" - for few months at least.


Originally posted by [email protected]
>>As for whether "suppression of public life and the restrictions upon the self-activity of the masses"..."are a product of an assumption that vanguard is supposed to assume political leadership in the revolution". Luxemburg didn&#39;t think that either. I think she explained the real causes pretty well:<<

Ehhh...huh?? ...look again...

But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

She&#39;s talking about bolsheviks.


Severian
>>But the Bolsheviks can&#39;t be blamed for their lack of 20-20 hindsight.<<

No they can&#39;t be. We can&#39;t question their motives either, it wouldn&#39;t be right. But they can be used as a bad example in certain aspects. One of them is the above mentioned.


>>Oh yes, there&#39;s much more to it.
...
For example, the fact that some parts of the former Russian Empire split away under capitalist regimes, which she holds up as a failure of Bolshevik nationality policy.<<

That one is irrelevant today. In the modern world national question is more-less solved. As much as nationalism is used today as a means of bourgeois tactics - i think that "right for self-determination" will not pose such problems as it might have posed before (in the imperial politics).

I&#39;ve allready emphasized what aspects of Luxemburg&#39;s critique (and of many others right next to hers) are important.


>>But without the "vanguardist" October insurrection...the soviets and the mass spontaneous action could not have taken power.
...
And without the Bolshevik Party, no October. As you seem to acknowledge by calling it a "vanguardist" action. So if you support the October Revolution, why oppose one of its necessary conditions?<<

It was agitation which helped the soviets take hold of power. Nothing more - nothing less.

I&#39;m against the assumption of political power by a party - this is one of main aspects of leninism - and of leninist "vanguardism" - and I&#39;m against it, as I explained several times in this thread. This is what this thread is about. I don&#39;t know why do you accuse me of negation of the political movement ("vanguard") in general.


"The Spartacus League is not a party that wants to rise to power over the mass of workers or through them.

The Spartacus League is only the most conscious, purposeful part of the proletariat, which points the entire broad mass of the working class toward its historical tasks at every step, which represents in each particular stage of the Revolution the ultimate socialist goal, and in all national questions the interests of the proletarian world revolution."

[metalero]

It should probably be made clear at the outset that since this is a discussion of Leninism, not Stalinism, and since Stalinism is a political opposite of communism, Stalinists like "Marxist-Leninist" simply have no place in this discussion.

Severian and others, I have read "Marxits-Leninist" messages in this thread and I dont see much of stalinism in them, but simply leninism. Why do you take such a hard attitud towards him?

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+Sep 8 2005, 06:06 AM--> (DJ-TC @ Sep 8 2005, 06:06 AM)
Severian
>>....but the point remains, that the Russian Revolution won and the German Revolution was crushed.<<

You don&#39;t get it, do you (I&#39;m bit cranky today, I failed on my psychology exam ;) )? When soviets lost power, when masses lost capacity, will and determination - and most of all - chance for self-activity - revolution was dead. Russian Revolution "won"?? Well, it did "win" - for few months at least. [/b]
And here we are back to whether the October Revolution was a step forward again. In your last post you said you thought it was.


She&#39;s talking about bolsheviks.

She&#39;s talking about the actions forced on the Bolsheviks by the situation. I could repaste the whole quote but if you didn&#39;t read it the first time....

You have a contradiction: one the one hand you say the objective conditions caused the degeneration of the revolution. I agree. But then you also say the degeneration of the revolution proves the Bolsheviks&#39; course was wrong, even that "history is screaming" that they were wrong. You can&#39;t have it both ways.

There&#39;s no way to prove that a different course would have prevented the degeneration of the revolution, or even helped do so. I doubt that any could have....given the defeats suffered by the world revolution.


That one is irrelevant today. In the modern world national question is more-less solved.

I have to laugh. You live in the former Yugoslavia - where none of the causes of the recent wars were resolved - and you think that? There are more armed conflicts over unresolved national questions in the world today than ever before. Plus all the unarmed national movements. More and more multinational states are splitting apart.

Nationalism - a product of capitalist development - is a more powerful force in the world than ever.


As much as nationalism is used today as a means of bourgeois tactics - i think that "right for self-determination" will not pose such problems as it might have posed before (in the imperial politics).

What? You think that "As much as nationalism is used today as a means of bourgeois tactics" makes it less of a problem? That&#39;s exactly backwards. Why would you say that?

And the national question is a huge - and growing - factor in U.S. politics. It&#39;s become a much larger internal factor in the politics of West European countries as well, thanks to massive immigration.

Of course, in this you are at least consistent with Luxemburg and her cothinkers. Have you read Radek&#39;s piece on the Easter Rising - where he says (in 1916&#33;) that Irish nationalism, and national revolts generally, are played out? He could not have picked a worse time to make that prediction.

Except maybe the present time, which you&#39;ve chosen to make yours.


It was agitation which helped the soviets take hold of power. Nothing more - nothing less.

That is dead wrong. Agitation and propaganda -words - by themselves, have a limited effect on the consciousness of millions. It is the experience of the struggle that is the biggest builder of consciousness, and a Bolshevik-type party builds class consciousness primarily by helping guide the course of that struggle.

As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, in response to Vanguard1917, if it was just a matter of agitation and propaganda, an all-inclusive party like the parties of the pre-WWI Second International can be pretty effective at that.

The Bolsheviks went to the Petrograd Soviet, proposed the formation of the Military Revolutionary Committee (a Soviet body), proposed all the measures it took to take command of the garrison, and then to carry out the insurrection (taking strategic points, etc., eventually the Winter Palace.)

That was the most irreplaceable link in the process. Others can verbally agitate for revolution, for "all power to the Soviets", whatever...the distinguishing thing about the Bolsheviks is that they meant it, and matched deeds to words.


I&#39;m against the assumption of political power by a party - this is one of main aspects of leninism - and of leninist "vanguardism" - and I&#39;m against it, as I explained several times in this thread. This is what this thread is about. I don&#39;t know why do you accuse me of negation of the political movement ("vanguard") in general.

Because in the modern world, political power is wielded by parties. If you&#39;re "against the assumption of political power by a party", in practice you&#39;re "against the assumption of political power" by the working class.

One more time: give me a counterexample. Show me how the working class has been able to take power any other way.


"The Spartacus League is not a party that wants to rise to power over the mass of workers or through them.

The Spartacus League is only the most conscious, purposeful part of the proletariat, which points the entire broad mass of the working class toward its historical tasks at every step, which represents in each particular stage of the Revolution the ultimate socialist goal, and in all national questions the interests of the proletarian world revolution."

Which even more accurately described the Bolshevik Party.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:46 PM

It should probably be made clear at the outset that since this is a discussion of Leninism, not Stalinism, and since Stalinism is a political opposite of communism, Stalinists like "Marxist-Leninist" simply have no place in this discussion.

Severian and others, I have read "Marxits-Leninist" messages in this thread and I dont see much of stalinism in them, but simply leninism. Why do you take such a hard attitud towards him?
I don&#39;t bother to read his posts anymore. I know from his past posts and his homepage (http://www.marxist-leninist.com/) that he&#39;s not only a Stalinist (that is, a follower of political ideas serving the interests of a bureaucratic caste in a postcapitalist country) but an admirer of Stalin personally....which marks him as somebody completely out of touch with the 21st century. And when I did read his posts, I never found him to have anything interesting to say. Mostly he just proclaimed people "revisionists" as if that word actually meant something.

Generally, that term "Marxist-Leninist" was coined to describe a trend that has nothing to do with Marxism or Leninism, rather it was used by those who took their line from the Moscow or Beijing bureacratic regimes. (Whether under Stalin or Mao or later apparatchiks like Deng and Gorbachev is a matter of indifference to me.)

Whether his posts are "simply Leninist" or not may depend on what one means by Leninism....for me, that terms carries an opposite meaning to what most self-described "Marxist-Leninists" give it.

[chebol]

Not going to bother with a full answer right now. Too busy raising consciousness and engaging in "vanguardism", (or whatever).
Someone has to actually do the leg-work to BUILD the freakin&#39; revolution, instead of justifying inactivity by sitting on a discussion board and GLORIFYING capitalism, or denigrating those that happen to think that getting together to ORGANISE themselves towards the building of a new society is a good thing.

This is like chewing rags in your sleep.
How many times do Kautsky and his marsh-dwelling friends need to be put aside?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Severian
>>And here we are back to whether the October Revolution was a step forward again. In your last post you said you thought it was.<<

It was a step forward in the "sense" R.L. is talking about. It triggered a revolutionary wave across Europe. It burried the opportunism of the 2nd international. But it sounds like you want to put a &#39;leninist copyright&#39; on the armed rebbelion part, like no one else in the world before and next to Lenin advocated it, so you go arround and accuse everyone of Kautskyism if he/she does not agree with Lenin, when in fact, it&#39;s the only (or one of rare) thing he/she agrees upon with him.

Measures of it&#39;s "vanguardist" leaders were a step backward. A historically nececary step. Problem is this: leninists today also "agree" that authoritative and repressive steps by the Party were "actions forced on the Bolsheviks by the situation" [you]. You want to claim that it was "forced upon"? Okay, I&#39;ve allready said that I don&#39;t question anyones motives. But just because such "vanguardist" measures were "forced upon" by a situation non-existant today, and even because it&#39;s clear that they are authoritarian and repressive - it&#39;s about time to drop them.


>>You have a contradiction: one the one hand you say the objective conditions caused the degeneration of the revolution. I agree. But then you also say the degeneration of the revolution proves the Bolsheviks&#39; course was wrong, even that "history is screaming" that they were wrong. You can&#39;t have it both ways.<<

Unbeleveable. You preach about dialectics but you don&#39;t see the connection. I see no contradiction - it&#39;s perfectly clear: leninists tend to still hold on to the measures of the bolsheviks when it&#39;s clear that they are also a degenerate product of degenerate conditions. You overemphasize the "subjective action" when it comes to first heroic steps, and later - revolutionary social organization, but on the other hand, when it comes to negative course - you put an emphasis on the "objective conditions" which are forced upon them.

You&#39;ve already agreed upon the fact which I&#39;m potentiating here: "If you want to point to mistakes you think Lenin made, fine. If you want to point out the Russian Revolution isn&#39;t a model for anyplace else and involved all kinds of aspects that shouldn&#39;t be repeated, fine...heck, on that I agree" [you]

You have to remember that R.L.&#39;s article was written in 1918 and it was mainly a polemic against the opportunists (SDP) in Germany. I don&#39;t think she would be so encouraged by the measures of bolshevism few years later if she had lived. On the contrary.


>>There&#39;s no way to prove that a different course would have prevented the degeneration of the revolution, or even helped do so. I doubt that any could have....given the defeats suffered by the world revolution.<<

All the more reason to drop the old, leninist course. Especially authoritative and collectivity-restrictive elements of it.


>>Of course, in this [national question] you are at least consistent with Luxemburg and her cothinkers.<<

No, you missunderstood. I have pretty much the same approach, just in contemporary, self-built fashion. I don&#39;t want to get into it though. It&#39;s not the subject. Besides, "right for self-determination" and official nationalism are not the same thing. Your accusations (again), make no sense and they are directed on a wrong person.

Hmmm... but don&#39;t tell me you are against the Lenin&#39;s formula of "self-determination"?


>>It is the experience of the struggle that is the biggest builder of consciousness<<

Yes it is. Bravo.
But you don&#39;t need a party to have a class struggle. You just need it to point the worker where to strike.


>>That is dead wrong. Agitation and propaganda -words - by themselves, have a limited effect on the consciousness of millions
...
The Bolsheviks went to the Petrograd Soviet, proposed the formation of the Military Revolutionary Committee (a Soviet body), proposed all the measures it took to take command of the garrison, and then to carry out the insurrection (taking strategic points, etc., eventually the Winter Palace.)<<
[emphasis added]

Agitation. Yeah, just words.


>>Because in the modern world, political power is wielded by parties. If you&#39;re "against the assumption of political power by a party", in practice you&#39;re "against the assumption of political power" by the working class.<<

Party does-not-equal Working class

Party equals small part of the working class + middle class leadership + enthusiasts + careerists + intelectuals


>>One more time: give me a counterexample. Show me how the working class has been able to take power any other way.<<

Factory committees, communes/soviets/councils, labor unions? Ring any bells?


>>Which even more accurately described the Bolshevik Party.<<

Yeah right..

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 09:38 AM
I see no contradiction - it&#39;s perfectly clear: leninists tend to still hold on to the measures of the bolsheviks when it&#39;s clear that they are also a degenerate product of degenerate conditions.

"Degenerate conditions"? What is this, condemning material reality and its "product" for failing to live up to your ideal norms?

This makes sense as a criticism of anyone who mindlessly imitates tactical Bolshevik measures in all other situations...but not of the Bolsheviks themselves.


You&#39;ve already agreed upon the fact which I&#39;m potentiating here: "If you want to point to mistakes you think Lenin made, fine. If you want to point out the Russian Revolution isn&#39;t a model for anyplace else and involved all kinds of aspects that shouldn&#39;t be repeated, fine...heck, on that I agree" [you]

Your argument goes far beyond that, into an attack on the Bolsheviks&#39; for "thinking it can help the masses to step few inches forward - more that they could" and on Lenin&#39;s concept of the party.

Which is one of the universal aspects of the revolution - because we&#39;ve seen that repeated everywhere else that capitalism has been overthrown, a centralized party has led it. The question of party organizatiion isn&#39;t a tactical question, but a tool that makes it possible to carry out a variety of tactics as part of a strategic course towards workers&#39; power.

The rest of your post is simply non sequiturs.