Marxism and Leninism [Archive]

21st April 2006, 03:45

I am not going to continue to respond to your posts, anomaly, if you're rude and off topic while contributing nothing.

But, yea, I have read it. Marx doesn't talk of any leading Vanguard Party, no great leaders, no rule over the proletariat.

Lenin doens't talk about any 'great leaders' or 'rule over the proletariat' either these are propagandistic claism of anti-communists and anarchists, nothing that Marxist-Leninists endorse or either Marx or Lenin endorsed.

Marx and Engels write about the Communist Party in the Manifesto:
"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. ""

Thats what a vanguard is. Vanguard just means forefront, advanced section, as Marx says the "section that pushes forward all others", thus Marx, before Lenin, envisioned the Communist Party as leading the workers in revolution.

In Civil War in France, Marx, in part three, talks about the need for decentralization again and again.

Perhaps you read some things out of context, because Marx criticizes the medival state of the French government, he criticizes the central government of the bourgeois not of the proletariat. He suggests that the Communards on the other hand, cost themselves their victory by being overly obsessed with direct democracy so that it couldn't take the reality of a creating a unified central attack on the versailles army...instead their excessive decentralization resulted in the inferior versailles forces carving them up district by autonomous district when if they were more effectively organized they'd have won by numbers alone.

I've had this discussion here before and i'm not going to get into the history of it though as this is off topic...i'll stick to Marx and Lenin's opinions, both of which you've misrepresented.

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 03:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:25 PM
Okay, if Redstar2000 is just gonna post a link to something he's written instead of writing something new, i'll do the same.

Leninism vs Marxism and Marxism vs Anarchism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47662&hl=)
That was indeed a rather instructive thread; so I add my recommendation to TragicClown's.

It lays out the basic differences...often quite bluntly. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

21st April 2006, 03:55

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League
London, March 1850

"At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers' clubs under a directorate established at the movement's center of operations. "

" In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority."

"As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization. "

Oh yah, Marx definately wanted decentralization lol :lol:

Look this is what he told his own party to do. Marx was no f'ing "libertarian" in the sense that you're using it.

BobKKKindle$

21st April 2006, 04:07

Lenin's own description of leninism was "Marxism adapted to the age of Imperialism" Imperialism being the stage in which Capitalists would begin contesting for resources and the means of production on an international level in the form of colonialism, as oppossed to just inside countries. And, of course, this has stunning implications for the modern globalisation movement :)

anomaly

21st April 2006, 04:13

That thread's ok. But TragicClown's definitions are rather controversial, to say the least. Just check that thread.

I don't know how you can read Civil War in France and come away with the idea that Marx supported a hierarchical, centralized state. He says they should have focused on destroying Versailles right away, yes, but he does not once advocate centralization of the state.

Note that Civil War in France was written some 20 years after his address to the Communist League (I've also read that).

But, if you want to make this a battle of the quotations, then, yea, you can point to some that say Marx supported this and some that say Marx supported that.

However, the Marxists, those without any Leninist baggage, clearly advocate something far different than a centralized hierarchical state.

Nachie

21st April 2006, 04:16

However, the Marxists, those without any Leninist baggage, clearly advocate something far different than a centralized hierarchical state.
AMEN HALLELUJAH! :lol:

Rawthentic

21st April 2006, 04:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:10 PM
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League
London, March 1850

"At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers' clubs under a directorate established at the movement's center of operations. "

" In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority."

"As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization. "

Oh yah, Marx definately wanted decentralization lol :lol:

Look this is what he told his own party to do. Marx was no f'ing "libertarian" in the sense that you're using it.
geezus christ! we will never go anywhere in revolution while Lenin is advocated. Learn history! We dont want another dictator! Marxism is nor Leninism. Leninism is a petty bourgeios ideology. Council Communism man or woman, whatever u are.

http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/80

read it, digest it, learn!

Entrails Konfetti

21st April 2006, 04:25

Doesn't that all depend on Marx's definition of centralizarion ?

This really all depends on what he meant about who would hold power, how, and under what circumstances.

A federation of communes, or councils are centralized but the power is from the masses, who give power to a delegate--but only under the prescription that they do what they were told to by their constintuents or they are out instantly.

21st April 2006, 04:43

Originally posted by Loyal Subject
That thread's ok. But TragicClown's definitions are rather...unique.

Typical Anomaly argument.

We dont want another dictator!

Neither do most Leninists.

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:00 PM
Marx and Engels write about the Communist Party in the Manifesto:
"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. ""

Thats what a vanguard is. Vanguard just means forefront, advanced section, as Marx says the "section that pushes forward all others", thus Marx, before Lenin, envisioned the Communist Party as leading the workers in revolution.
I have to say that this is a bit of a misread, in my opinion. I was having a conversation about this with another comrade a few weeks ago, here is his question and my response.

The question is; who or what constitutes the vanguard, or, who or what is the most advanced section of the proletariat?

That is a common misconception among self-described Marxist-Leninists. They misunderstood both Lenin and Marx on this issue. When, for example, Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto about how the Communists "do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties" and "have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole", he was referring to their relationship to the vanguard, not so much to the class as a whole. This is shown when he talks of how "the immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" (boldface mine).

This is important to note. These three points are considered to be the definition -- the epitome -- of the viewpoint and program of the "vanguard of the proletariat". But here, Marx sees the Communists operating among other proletarian parties, which together encompass the vanguard of the proletariat.

This brings us to Lenin and the conditions he had to deal with. In Russia, it was not until almost literally the last moment, with the formation of the Left Social-Revolutionaries, that the only organization that could be described as a "proletarian party" in Marx's sense was the Bolshevik Party. They were the only ones who fought for all three of these points; the Mensheviks, Center and Right S-Rs, etc., had abandoned all pretense to supporting these points. Similarly, the only allies that the Bolsheviks had, apart from the Left S-Rs, were individual anarchists and small anarchist groups, none of which came even close to the size and influence of the Bolsheviks. In a very real sense, they were "the vanguard party", but that was because they were really the ONLY party that encompassed broad sections of the vanguard.

Internationally, the conditions following the First World War somewhat paralleled that of Russia. The parties of the Second International had abandoned -- if not completely, at least in practice (hence the formulation of centrism) -- the three points that describe a vanguard. Throughout most of the 1920s and 1930s, as the Communist International began to degenerate and splinter, this situation began to change again. No longer were all those workers who favored the "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" in a single organization (or, given the orientation of the two main splits in the Comintern in the late-1920s, three public factions of a single organization). A process of atomization began among those sections of the proletariat -- a process greatly accelerated by both the rise of fascism in Europe (and the impending World War) and the continued degeneration of the parties of the Comintern.

By the end of the Second World War, there was no longer any single movement that could claim to be "the vanguard". Instead, there existed a number of organizations, both large and small, whose memberships were either partially or fully adherent to these criteria. The large "official" Communist Parties, for example, had leaderships that had long since abandoned the concept of proletarian revolution, but had memberships that looked to the October Revolution as their example and inspiration. The Trotskyists, Maoists, dissident Marxist-Leninists, etc., all had similar dynamics, with their leaderships varying on how genuinely they upheld those "vanguard" principles. On top of this, you also had the development of a section of the working class that decided that the existing parties were all worthless, but still saw revolution as vital for the survival of humanity.

Thus, you had a very real vanguard -- a section of the working class dedicated to "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" -- but it was disorganized, scattered across a myriad of organizations or not in any organization at all. This situation still exists today.

Miles

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 05:18

A couple of comments on these quotes:

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:10 PM
" In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority."

"As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization. "

The call for centralization by Marx made in these quotes was conditioned by the circumstances. The German revolution was about breaking the power of the feudal aristocracy and landed gentry. That social system was based on decentralization and localized authority; the most efficient way to break it apart was through maximizing centralization, which would allow the democratic revolution to continue forward to completion.

As for centralization after the overthrow of capitalism, the very concept of workers' control of production answers that. You cannot have workers' control of production if it is directed, top-down, from a "center" (i.e., in a bourgeois manner). You can, on the other hand, have a voluntary "centralization", organized by working people, beginning at the point of production and organizing coordination ("centralization") on local, regional, industrial, national and international levels.

This was what Marx meant when he wrote, in reference to the Constitution of the Paris Commune, in The Civil War in France: "National unity was not to be broken [as the anarchists wanted -- HJM], but, on the contrary, organized by the communal constitution; it was to become a reality by the destruction of state power which posed as the embodiment of that unity yet wanted to be independent of, and superior to, the nation, on whose body it was but a parasitic excrescence. While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority claiming the right to stand above society, and restored to the responsible servants of society."

Miles

barista.marxista

21st April 2006, 05:43

If you're going to use the Manifesto (which is underdeveloped Marx), how about this quote:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

WHOAAAAAAA!!!!!!

But seriously, you want to know the difference between Marxism and Leninism (which cannot be considered communism)? Let's examine these two quotes:

Originally posted by "Marx+ 'Civil War in France'"--> ("Marx @ 'Civil War in France'")But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism.

@ MIA (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)[/b]

This quote leaves no room for contextualization, or for other readings. It's from Marx at his most politically developed. And it very simply deconstructs the Leninist notion of the state. But what is even more important is what it infers: if the proletariat cannot weild what we perceive of as the state (including the army, police, and bureaucracy), then it must construct for itself new methods of organization to manifest its class rule. Here in this quote is the seed for what was later termed by the Italian Marxist Toni Negri as "self-valorisation". Self-valorisation is the notion that it is not the goal to simply refuse work, but rather to create new life and organization through the space that opens up when you refuse work. Only in this way can the proletariat realize itself and its potential, and become a "class for itself."

Obviously this was not seen in the Leninist autocracies. And why? Well, onto our next quote:

"[email protected] 'The Trade Unions, The Present Situation And Trotsky's Mistakes'"
But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard.

@ MIA (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

I think this quote plainly and unabashedly speaks to the anti-proletarian nature of Leninist organization and philosophy. The common Leninist retort that the notion of the "professional revolutionary" was leftover from Kautsky is simply not true: this quote is from 1920 (almost twenty years after What Is to Be Done). So Lenin not only took it to heart, but his organizational methodology depended on it. And there is a reason for this: Leninism developed out of third-world, neocolonial, proto-capitalist conditions in Russian. It had neither the developed proletariat, the liberal bourgeois culture, nor the productive capabilities of the industrialized world; these things are necessary for proletarian revolution, unless we are to disregard all teleological thought, not to mention historical evidence. Leninism is anachronistic at best, and downright dangerous at worst. It wasn't just the material conditions of post-October Russia that caused the most devastating event in the history of revolutionary leftism; it was the methodology itself.

Obviously we see that Marx's notion of proletarian self-organization (not what he argued for in the international, or with unions, or any of TragicClown's previous quotes -- but actual self-organization by the proletariat by itself, for itself) was vastly different than Lenin's. And everyone laments on how Marx never developed a theory on what the post-revolution society would look like. But there was a reason for that: he realized he simply was in a stage of history that obscured his ability to predict what could come. It was thus vaguely generalized to "proletarian states" and DofPs -- his definitions of which are based on underdeveloped capitalist presuppositions, where he thought capitalism could not possibly resolve its internal contradictions in order to allow the development of the means of production to the point where we can produce for all. Lenin sufferred from this same incapability of prediction -- only he tried to resolve it, and Marx didn't. And that was for a reason: because it was fucking dangerous, as we have seen.

And, finally: Miles makes an extremely valuable point: the few quotes Marx mentions centralization in must be contextualized historically if we're to take anything from them. And the differentiation between pre- and post-revolution organization is also essential. I'm happy to see we're capable of agreeing on something. ;)

21st April 2006, 06:29

Originally posted by BA
if the proletariat cannot weild what we perceive of as the state (including the army, police, and bureaucracy), then it must construct for itself new methods of organization to manifest its class rule.

Yes, the capitalist state must be destroyed and a proletarian state constructed.

LoneRed

21st April 2006, 08:19

that is What Is to Be Done nothing less

Vanguard1917

21st April 2006, 10:37

Firstly, Leninism is the development of Marxism - it is not merely the restatement of the ideas of Marx and Engels. Lenin (or, more accurately, the Bolshevik tradition - the highest and most fruitful stage in the historic development of Marxism) developed ideas and notions that were, previously, rather under-developed or under-emphasised: the Marxist theory of the state and of the party are central among these (as well as, of course, the Marxist theory of imperialism).

Secondly, Marxism is a method. The aim of Marxists is to apply this method to the study of social phenomena. I would argue that Lenin was the most adept Marxist thinker of his time - because he accurately applied the Marxist method of the materialist dialectic in ways that his 'Marxist' contemporaries (for whatever reason) did not. This is due partly to the historical climate in which Lenin and Bolshevism existed: the most revolutionary working class movement that history has ever witnessed. In this sense, the ideas of Marx were developed along with the development of the working class movement.

barista.marxista:

I think this quote plainly and unabashedly speaks to the anti-proletarian nature of Leninist organization and philosophy.

On the contrary, that Lenin statement that you quote shows the pro-proletarian nature of Leninism. It shows that Lenin clearly understood: (1) that large sections working class are divided, degraded and corrupted by capitalist society; and (2) this means that, if the workers' party was to embrace the whole of the working class, it would necessarily bring division, degradation and corruption into the party.

That is why the party must look to the advanced sections of the working class - advanced in terms of class consciousness. Only these sections of the working class can give way to the formation of a party dedicated to working class revolution. If the party embraces non-class conscious sections of the working class - i.e. sections of the working class heavily influenced by bourgeois ideas - this will necessarily give way to the introduction of bourgeois elements into the party. Actually, therefore, if the party embraced the whole of the working class, that party would not be pro-proletarian but, necessarily, anti-proletarian.

Obviously we see that Marx's notion of proletarian self-organization (not what he argued for in the international, or with unions, or any of TragicClown's previous quotes -- but actual self-organization by the proletariat by itself, for itself) was vastly different than Lenin's.

The vanguard is the revolutionary organisation of the working class. The most advanced sections of the working class are the best representatives of the being of the working class and the historical role working class. Marx did not see the working class as being automatically conscious of its class interests. He is very clear about this in the Holy Family:

'It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment, regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do.' (Marx's emphases)

Notice that Marx uses the word 'compel'. In the absense of a revolutionary party, how is the working class to be 'historically compelled' to overthrow capitalism? In capitalist society, if the working class does not possess class consciousness, the working class acts with false consciousness. Where does this class consciousness come from? Does it come about as a mechanistic result of economic problems in capitalist society? History has shown that it doesn't. This is a questions that anti-Leninists need to address.

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 12:38

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Where does this class consciousness come from? Does it come about as a mechanistic result of economic problems in capitalist society? History has shown that it doesn't. This is a question that anti-Leninists need to address.

It doesn't?

How is it that it is precisely during periods of "economic problems" that interest in communist ideas rises? While during periods of "prosperity", interest in communist ideas declines nearly to the vanishing point.

How is it that class struggle visibly intensifies and becomes more radical during periods of "economic problems"...while the reverse takes place during periods of "prosperity".

Finally, if there's anything that "history" has conclusively "shown", it's that the Leninist strategy of "injecting class consciousness" from middle-class "leaders" has been a catastrophic failure.

Leninist parties universally claim to be "proletarian" and there were times when some of them did have a large working-class membership. But the combination of middle-class leadership and "democratic" centralism meant that in fact, the interests of the working class were nearly always subordinated to the careerist ambitions of the leadership.

Each variety of Leninism replies that "oh, that's true about those other guys, but not us!"

It's true about all of you!

The main observable characteristic of Leninist "vanguard parties" in the last half-century or so is that they've become even more middle-class in composition. And moved steadily rightwards as a consequence.

If Lenin ever climbed out of his tomb, he would not even recognize those who claim the mantle of his authority today. Even if he was wrong, he was still a revolutionary.

Today's Leninists wouldn't recognize a proletarian revolution if it walked up and bit them in the leg. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bloody_capitalist_sham

21st April 2006, 13:28

Today's Leninists wouldn't recognize a proletarian revolution if it walked up and bit them in the leg. laugh.gif

They probably would, they just wouldn’t care because they aren’t in charge.

I think in theory the distinction between Leninism and Marxism is mighty blurred, because quoting Marx and Lenin can be messy. Marx started out with a far more optimistic view than in his later life.

Also, Stalin was hailed by Mao as the leader of the global proletarian revolution, the strongest revolutionary upholding Marxism-Leninism.

As far as I know, Stalin liked personality cults. Is that Leninism? I know it isn’t Marxist.

Wanted Man

21st April 2006, 14:41

Hmm. Can anyone tell me where the Leninists advocate a particularly middle class leadership? Because that's certainly an odd way of looking at things. :lol:

As for anomaly's sig:

We will hunt you at your conferences, burn your newspapers, and beat you in the streets.
Bring it on! Leninist parties have long had to deal with street violence against them, although often not from anarchists. But if they try to prevent us from publishing our newspapers, we'll do the same as the comrades did in 1956 when their printing presses were threatened: use the equipment from the presses to smash your heads into a bloody goddamn pulp.

chimx

21st April 2006, 15:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:56 PM

We will hunt you at your conferences, burn your newspapers, and beat you in the streets.
Bring it on! Leninist parties have long had to deal with street violence against them, although often not from anarchists. But if they try to prevent us from publishing our newspapers, we'll do the same as the comrades did in 1956 when their printing presses were threatened: use the equipment from the presses to smash your heads into a bloody goddamn pulp.
whoa whoa whoa. who said anything about violence? when raan wrote that we were talking about beating leninists at kickball. their democratic centralism just doesn't lend itself to the game.

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 15:30

Originally posted by Matthijs+--> (Matthijs)Can anyone tell me where the Leninists advocate a particularly middle class leadership?[/b]

Goes all the way back. :)

Lenin
We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without....

The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. -- emphasis Lenin's.

What is to be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#fwV05P375F01)

"Educated representatives of the propertied classes" must be available to "lead the party" because workers themselves "can't do it." They are "not educated" enough.

One can certainly understand the plausibility of this view in Lenin's era...when education was a class privilege.

Do you think it makes sense now?

I don't. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Janus

21st April 2006, 20:53

whoa whoa whoa. who said anything about violence? when raan wrote that we were talking about beating leninists at kickball.
You're kidding, right? It's one thing to vehemently oppose pther leftists and another to openly advocate violence against them. This is totally counterproductive to our movement.

As for centralization, there are quotes from Marx that support centralization and there are those that support decentralization. So, using Marx quotes doesn't really mean much.

"Educated representatives of the propertied classes" must be available to "lead the party" because workers themselves "can't do it." They are "not educated" enough.

One can certainly understand the plausibility of this view in Lenin's era...when education was a class privilege.

Do you think it makes sense now?

I don't.
I defintely agree and believe that this arrogance and superiority complex should be combated against at all times. Even putting workers in any type of vanguard still creates this hierarchial problem that can later lead to abuses of power.

McGrogan

21st April 2006, 22:48

What about the issue of war? It seems that Lenin was for war at any time so long as it would advance the movement. Marx seems to be less thrilled about war from my reading. Lenin wanted war in the Balkins so bad he could almost taste it. Marx seemed to fear war in Europe.

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 23:07

Neither of those guys were pacifists...I don't think their opinions were very different on this issue at all.

Lenin, to his credit, came up with a good slogan: Turn the imperialist war into a Civil War.

The soldiers in each country should shoot their officers!

American soldiers in Vietnam, who'd never heard of Lenin, spontaneously came to this conclusion and were certainly one of the significant forces that brought that particular imperial adventure to its ignominious conclusion.

We can only hope that American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will do likewise. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

вор в законе

22nd April 2006, 00:30

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 21 2006, 02:45 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 21 2006, 02:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Can anyone tell me where the Leninists advocate a particularly middle class leadership?

Goes all the way back. :)

Lenin
We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without....

The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. -- emphasis Lenin's.

What is to be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#fwV05P375F01)

"Educated representatives of the propertied classes" must be available to "lead the party" because workers themselves "can't do it." They are "not educated" enough.

One can certainly understand the plausibility of this view in Lenin's era...when education was a class privilege.

Do you think it makes sense now?

I don't. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[/b]
The Russian workers, or I should better say peasants, back then were in no position to manage themselves due to the ills feudalism.

Lenin was correct in what he emphasized for his period of time.

Fistful of Steel

22nd April 2006, 02:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:22 PM
Neither of those guys were pacifists...I don't think their opinions were very different on this issue at all.

Lenin, to his credit, came up with a good slogan: Turn the imperialist war into a Civil War.

The soldiers in each country should shoot their officers!

American soldiers in Vietnam, who'd never heard of Lenin, spontaneously came to this conclusion and were certainly one of the significant forces that brought that particular imperial adventure to its ignominious conclusion.

We can only hope that American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will do likewise. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I think if the American soldiers stay over their for too long they'll come to the same conclusion as well...

Lenin wasn't particularly peaceful at all, the only reason he backed out of World War I was to consolidate power in Russia, I think if given the opportunity he would've waged war in hopes of fermenting a revolution in Germany.

peaccenicked

22nd April 2006, 04:47

I also think it is wrong, disingenuous, and serves no purpose to decontextualise Lenin and write him into an anarchist fairy tale version of history.

This is much more true to the spirit of Lenins position:
"Our movement suffers in the first place, ideologically, as well as in practical and organisational respects, from its state of fragmentation, from the almost complete immersion of the overwhelming majority of Social-Democrats in local work, which narrows their outlook, the scope of their activities, and their skill in the maintenance of secrecy and their preparedness. It is precisely in this state of fragmentation that one must look for the deepest roots of the instability and the waverings noted above. The first step towards eliminating this short-coming, towards transforming divers local movements into a single, All-Russian movement, must be the founding of an All-Russian newspaper. Lastly, what we need is definitely a political newspaper. Without a political organ, a political movement deserving that name is inconceivable in the Europe of today. Without such a newspaper we cannot possibly fulfill our task—that of concentrating all the elements of political discontent and protest, of vitalising thereby the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. We have taken the first step, we have aroused in the working class a passion for “economic”, factory exposures; we must now take the next step, that of arousing in every section of the population that is at all politically conscious a passion for political exposure. We must not be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is today so feeble, timid, and infrequent. This is not because of a wholesale submission to police despotism, but because those who are able and ready to make exposures have no tribune from which to speak, no eager and encouraging audience, they do not see anywhere among the people that force to which it would be worth while directing their complaint against the “omnipotent” Russian Government. But today all this is rapidly changing. There is such a force—it is the revolutionary proletariat, which has demonstrated its readiness, not only to listen to and support the summons to political struggle, but boldly to engage in battle. We are now in a position to provide a tribune for the nationwide exposure of the tsarist government, and it is our duty to do this. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic newspaper. The Russian working class, as distinct from the other classes and strata of Russian society, displays a constant interest in political knowledge and manifests a constant and extensive demand (not only in periods of intensive unrest) for illegal literature. When such a mass demand is evident, when the training of experienced revolutionary leaders has already begun, and when the concentration of the working class makes it virtual master in the working-class districts of the big cities and in the factory settlements and communities, it is quite feasible for the proletariat to found a political newspaper. Through the proletariat the newspaper will reach the urban petty bourgeoisie, the rural handicraftsmen, and the peasants, thereby becoming a real people’s political newspaper"

From "where to begin?"

redstar2000

22nd April 2006, 11:53

Originally posted by Lenin
Our movement suffers in the first place, ideologically, as well as in practical and organisational respects, from its state of fragmentation, from the almost complete immersion of the overwhelming majority of Social-Democrats in local work, which narrows their outlook, the scope of their activities, and their skill in the maintenance of secrecy and their preparedness.

A lament heard often enough among revolutionaries throughout modern history...and usually objectively justified.

Does Lenin's organizational and political perspective solve the problem?

Well it did in Czarist Russia.

Did it work in any advanced capitalist country?

No.

What does that tell us?

Was everybody who claimed to be a "Leninist" a hopeless fuckup?

Or were they all trying to do something that couldn't be done?

Trying to teach rebelliousness by first convincing people to be obedient to the party's authority?

I vote for "couldn't be done". In the "west", the Leninist party is the wrong tool for the job.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Vanguard1917

22nd April 2006, 13:07

How is it that it is precisely during periods of "economic problems" that interest in communist ideas rises? While during periods of "prosperity", interest in communist ideas declines nearly to the vanishing point.

How is it that class struggle visibly intensifies and becomes more radical during periods of "economic problems"...while the reverse takes place during periods of "prosperity".

Economic crisis often gives way to greater radicalism. But not always. The spreading of communist radicalism in times of economic crisis also depends on subjective forces. For example, if an economic crisis took place in the West tomorrow, it is unlikely to amount to much - due, first and foremost, to the ridiculous state of working class-orientated leftwing politics at the moment. A spontaneous rise of the working class may give way to a more dynamic left, but we can't take it for granted... it's far from being an inevitability. A serious political struggle is needed within the left.

redstar2000

22nd April 2006, 13:48

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Economic crisis often gives way to greater radicalism. But not always. The spreading of communist radicalism in times of economic crisis also depends on subjective forces.

If there are modern exceptions, I don't know of them.

More importantly, the Leninist emphasis on "subjective forces" seems...well, implausible.

Almost idealist.

What's the difference between "subjective forces" and the old and largely discredited bourgeois concepts of "great men" and "great ideas" as determining factors of history?

There are "subjective forces", to be sure, but do they not derive from objective material conditions?

Surely you do not imagine that they "fall out of the sky" by "sheer chance", do you?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Vanguard1917

23rd April 2006, 08:37

If there are modern exceptions, I don't know of them.

I was trying to say that the intensification of the class struggle in times of economic crisis has historically given way to reaction (interwar fascism, for example) as well as to radicalism.

Almost idealist.

What's the difference between "subjective forces" and the old and largely discredited bourgeois concepts of "great men" and "great ideas" as determining factors of history?

There are "subjective forces", to be sure, but do they not derive from objective material conditions?

I don't think it's idealist. I do think, however, that ideas do matter in the point of view of the materialism of Marxism. There is an interplay between ideas and material conditions, consciousness and being, and between subject and object. This is what distinguishes the materialism of Marx from the materialists before him. Look at the Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, for example.

Subjective forces derive from objective material conditions. But this is not the same thing as saying that subjective forces do not affect material conditions. Human beings act with consciousness - and subjective forces play a fundamental role in forming people's consciousness. It has done throughout history, more than often producing false consciousness. The working class is the only class in history that is able to rid itself of false consciousness. As Engels says, history is 'always governed by inner, hidden laws... it is only a matter of discovering these laws.' He says that 'the history of the development of society proves to be essentially different from that of nature' because, in nature, 'there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another' and nothing happens 'as a consciously desired aim'. This is different from the history of society:

'In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim.'

He also states: 'Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the resultant of these many wills operating in different directions, and of their manifold effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history.'

So if we uphold this Marxist understanding of the history of society, we have to acknowledge that human consciousness plays a key role - both in the history of society and in the Marxist understanding of it. Theory matters. Consciousness, its content and the extent to which it is spread in society, matters. Remember, Marx famously said that where the proletariat is the heart of socialism, philosophy is its brain. Thinking men and women play a fundamental role. That is why Leninists say that there cannot be a revolutionary working class movement without revolutionary theory. The laws of history need to be discovered, as Engels says. We must prove the truth, as Marx argues. And, in my opinion, this requires organisation. It requires political struggles and theoretical struggles. That's why Leninists say that without high forms of organisation, the working class is nothing.

*Edit*

All Engels quotes are from Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/index.htm)).

redstar2000

23rd April 2006, 18:25

Vanguard1917, I must admit that your post was remarkably cogent and well informed; considerably superior to the general level of Leninist "argument" on this board.

You said some interesting things. :)

So let's have a look.

I was trying to say that the intensification of the class struggle in times of economic crisis has historically given way to reaction (interwar fascism, for example) as well as to radicalism.

The Leninist "explanation" for the fascist successes in the years between the two world wars is the "inadequacy" of "revolutionary leadership"...in fact, I think Trotsky himself used the phrase "crisis of revolutionary leadership".

Now, is that true?

I don't think it is true at all. I don't think the working class in any of the countries where the ruling class opted for the fascist option were ready to make a proletarian revolution as an alternative...and the reason for that rests on objective material conditions in those countries.

Specifically, the working class in those countries was still thoroughly permeated with bourgeois and even pre-bourgeois "ideological baggage".

The Leninist illusion is that a successful revolutionary coup can "overcome that backwardness"...and that is simply not true.

Proletarian revolution and communism are impossible without revolutionary class consciousness...and history has taught us that there's no way that the consciousness of a "leadership" can be successfully substituted for that class-wide consciousness.

You can "imagine" a coup by the German KPD or the French CPF or the Italian PCI...but even if they had been able to do it, would it have made a real difference?

Yes. it would have short-circuited fascism...but is there any reason to believe that any of those countries would not have ended up approximately where Russia is now?

Indeed, is there any reason to think that even with Trotskyist leadership that things would have turned out any differently in those countries than they did?

I can "Monday morning quarterback" just as well as the next fellow. I can go back and assert that things might have worked better if the KPD and done "this" instead of "that"...and so on. But I see nothing that those parties could have done that would have made a "big difference".

A working class that still "believes" in patriotism, patriarchy, religion, etc., is not going to make a real proletarian revolution.

No matter "who" attempts to "lead" them.

Subjective forces derive from objective material conditions. But this is not the same thing as saying that subjective forces do not affect material conditions. Human beings act with consciousness - and subjective forces play a fundamental role in forming people's consciousness.

They do indeed "affect material conditions"...primarily through innovation in the means of production.

That's where the substantive changes in people's "consciousness" comes from...new ways of "making a living".

Without that, you just end up with variations on what already exists.

It makes a big difference to people who happen to be alive at the time what form of capitalism one happens to find oneself in -- "nice social democracy" or "nasty fascism" or whatever.

In the "big picture", the differences are trivial. It's all capitalism and all subject to the same factors that promote proletarian revolution sooner or later.

The ideas that we associate with proletarian revolution won't make sense to the working class until whatever form of capitalist society that happens to exist is subjected to intolerable strains and ceases to effectively function at all.

There's no real historical "short-cut" around necessity.

The working class is the only class in history that is able to rid itself of false consciousness.

That's a hypothesis...and I certainly hope that it will turn out to be valid.

But notice the words you chose: rid itself.

There's no one, not even Lenin's "educated representatives of the properties classes", who can do that job "for" the working class.

Communist ideas can be made available to the working class; but the class must appropriate those ideas for its own use...or else, nothing really changes.

Originally posted by Engels
In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim.

But "what happens" does not necessarily follow from either "purpose" or "passion".

What people may attempt "to do" is constrained by objective material reality. Some things are possible; others are not.

What Lenin and the Bolsheviks attempted to do in Russia turned out to be impossible.

In fact, the whole history of 20th century communism turned out to be exercises in futility...nowhere were objective material conditions sufficiently developed to make communism possible.

Leninists of all varieties imagine that if only the "right leadership" with the "correct ideas" had been present, then everything would have turned out "completely different" and "a whole lot better".

No way!

Theory matters. Consciousness, its content and the extent to which it is spread in society, matters. Remember, Marx famously said that where the proletariat is the heart of socialism, philosophy is its brain. Thinking men and women play a fundamental role. That is why Leninists say that there cannot be a revolutionary working class movement without revolutionary theory.

As it happens, I agree with you that "theory matters". I even agree with Lenin that a revolutionary theory is critical to the existence of a revolutionary movement.

His theory turned out not to work; but that doesn't mean, in my view, that the task is "hopeless".

By making "good theory" available to the working class, "thinking men and women" do historically important work; I do not deny that.

Engels' penchant for "hidden laws of history" is problematical -- I think it reflects a 19th century fascination with "laws of nature". But if we are more modest and speak instead of "regularities", "patterns", and "probabilities", then yes, I think those are discoverable and many are already known. They are part of objective material reality.

Can they be used to "guide history" in the direction we want it to take?

Like we use the laws of physics to build a machine that actually works?

In a way, that's at the heart of the Leninist paradigm...that a "mastery" of the "hidden laws of history" can bring a Leninist party to power practically regardless of objective material conditions.

And once in power, the party can "build socialism" and make a successful "transition to communism"...because it "knows what it's doing" to a degree unprecedented in all prior revolutions.

I contend that that claim is unsupported by historical reality.

There's "no lever" and "no place to stand" to "move the earth".

Only the revolutionary masses can do that...and they can only do that when they want to.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

McGrogan

24th April 2006, 20:13

Where is the quote found, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" by Marx? Like what piece of writing...

redstar2000

24th April 2006, 22:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:28 PM
Where is the quote found, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" by Marx? Like what piece of writing...
>>>Proverbial - late sixteenth century. Often wrongly attributed to Samuel Johnson.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/369100.html

I don't recall Marx ever using the phrase; though if there is a German equivalent, then he might have used that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Vanguard1917

25th April 2006, 11:51

I don't think it is true at all. I don't think the working class in any of the countries where the ruling class opted for the fascist option were ready to make a proletarian revolution as an alternative...and the reason for that rests on objective material conditions in those countries.

The objective material conditions were there for a successful working class revolution - particularly in Germany. The barbaric First World War most clearly showed the German working class that capitalism was not working, and there was a genuine revolutionary movement. By the end of the 1920s, capitalism was suffering perhaps it worst economic crisis. The subsequent victory of fascism and the defeat of the working class was not inevitable. It could have swung either way - depending on the power of revolutionary forces against reactionary ones. This is where the subjectivity of the working class movement played a decisive role.

Specifically, the working class in those countries was still thoroughly permeated with bourgeois and even pre-bourgeois "ideological baggage".

I don't know what you mean by 'pre-bourgeois "ideological baggage"', and i really don't know the exact extent to which the working class in Germany was permeated with bourgeois ideas. But it's true that the hegemony of bourgeois ideas needed to be confronted. For you, they cannot be confronted, because this would imply that ideas (which, according to you, are mechanistically determined by objective material conditions) can be confronted subjectively. Don't you see that your economic determinism has massive fatalistic implications? It reduces human beings to passive bystanders of history.

Proletarian revolution and communism are impossible without revolutionary class consciousness...and history has taught us that there's no way that the consciousness of a "leadership" can be successfully substituted for that class-wide consciousness.

I agree, as did Lenin, that a party leadership cannot be a substitute for the revolutionary working class. Lenin, on numerous occassions during the revolutionary movement in Russia, argued that the masses are a lot more leftwing than the communist leadership. For this reason, Lenin's key demand was that the party does not tail behind the masses. The vanguard party - made up of the most class conscious sections of the working class - should be precisely that: at the forefront of the movement, responsive to the already existing revolutionary climate. That is why a political struggle was needed within the party itself. Without this, the party would lag behind the movement.

You can "imagine" a coup by the German KPD or the French CPF or the Italian PCI...but even if they had been able to do it, would it have made a real difference?

As long as these parties had their bases in the revolutionary masses, and were at the forefront of the revolutionary masses, it would not have been a coup but a social revolution. We always have to ask: what social dynamic does the party have its base in, and is it at the forefront of this social dynamic?

Yes. it would have short-circuited fascism...but is there any reason to believe that any of those countries would not have ended up approximately where Russia is now?

There are a number of reasons to believe that. If the German revolution had been successful in overthrowing capitalism, the Russian working class would have had an important ally. The conservatism of Stalinism would not have had scope to triumph in Russia, as well as in those very parties that you mention, since 'socialism in one country' was a product of Soviet isolation. A workers' revolution in Germany would have been a lift for the working class across Europe and beyond, and working class militancy would have had more reason to spread.

Indeed, is there any reason to think that even with Trotskyist leadership that things would have turned out any differently in those countries than they did?

Things could well have turned out differently if a revolutionary leadership, through political struggles, had been at the forefront of any existing revolutionary dynamic in society.

I can "Monday morning quarterback" just as well as the next fellow. I can go back and assert that things might have worked better if the KPD and done "this" instead of "that"...and so on. But I see nothing that those parties could have done that would have made a "big difference".

This is because of your economism, and your cynical distrust of politics. By attempting to reconcile anarchism with Marxism, you have inherited an inherent anarchist disdain for political action. That's why you relegate political action, if not advocate outright abstinence from political action. Such an anti-political prejudice is absolutely alien to a Marxist tradition that states: every class struggle is a political struggle.

A working class that still "believes" in patriotism, patriarchy, religion, etc., is not going to make a real proletarian revolution.

Such reactionary ideas will be defeated in the revolutionary process. But their eradication is not a precondition for that process to begin. To demand that it should be is utopian, since such reactionary ideas cannot be defeated within the confines of capitalism. They can only be defeated through revolutionary means.

The ideas that we associate with proletarian revolution won't make sense to the working class until whatever form of capitalist society that happens to exist is subjected to intolerable strains and ceases to effectively function at all.

But hasn't capitalist crisis been the story of the 20th century? After all, it took two horrendously barbaric imperialist wars to maintain some capitalist stability... periodically, until the 1970s. And you miss a key point: whether capitalism is 'subjected to intolerable strains and ceases to effectively function at all' depends on the working class movement. In fact, the reason that we're seeing relative capitalist 'stability' today is primarily due to the fact that the working class is no longer threatening capitalism. This is a subjective problem.

What people may attempt "to do" is constrained by objective material reality. Some things are possible; others are not.

What Lenin and the Bolsheviks attempted to do in Russia turned out to be impossible.

The Bolsheviks and working class power were heavily constrained by objective material conditions. Lenin recognised this. He said: unless there is revolution in other countries, working class power cannot exist (i.e. 'only a compromise with the peasantry can save the revolution in Russia').

redstar2000

25th April 2006, 18:38

I guess it was too much to expect you to maintain the level of your previous post. In place of argument, you simply offer doctrinaire assertions that one cannot contest because they are articles of faith.

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
The objective material conditions were there for a successful working class revolution - particularly in Germany.

If that was true then there would have been one!

There wasn't. :(

By the end of the 1920s, capitalism was suffering perhaps it worst economic crisis. The subsequent victory of fascism and the defeat of the working class was not inevitable.

Looks that way to me.

Losing the Battle of the Streets -- Reflections on the KPD 1930-33 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1107010157&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I don't know what you mean by "pre-bourgeois ideological baggage"...

The usual suspects: patriotism, patriarchy, religion, etc. And anti-semitism of course.

But it's true that the hegemony of bourgeois ideas needed to be confronted.

You'd never guess that from the practice of modern Trotskyists. On this board, they're always yapping about "tolerance for religion", blah, blah, blah.

For you, they cannot be confronted, because this would imply that ideas (which, according to you, are mechanistically determined by objective material conditions) can be confronted subjectively.

Makes you wonder why I spend so much time on a message board, doesn't it? :lol:

My practice obviously implies that I think it worthwhile to confront and defeat reactionary ideas.

But unlike Leninists, I don't imagine that my efforts "determine the outcome".

My head refuses to grow to that size! :lol:

This is because of your economism, and your cynical distrust of politics.

Has anything happened in the last couple of centuries to invalidate my "cynicism"?

I don't know what you mean by "economism" in this context...I suspect you are referring to historical materialism but just want to make it "sound bad".

Such an anti-political prejudice is absolutely alien to a Marxist tradition that states: every class struggle is a political struggle.

The only "political struggle" that I recognize is the struggle to overthrow capitalist state power! I am uninterested in replacing capitalist despotism with the despotism of well-meaning middle-class "revolutionaries" who claim to know my real interests better than I do.

But their eradication is not a precondition for that process to begin. To demand that it should be is utopian, since such reactionary ideas cannot be defeated within the confines of capitalism.

It IS a "precondition"...no matter how "utopian" that sounds.

You obviously envision a dictatorship of a "really progressive minority" over a "really backward majority" which will be purged of backward ideas at gunpoint.

And you say I'm "utopian"! :lol:

But hasn't capitalist crisis been the story of the 20th century?

It was a "bad" century...but this one is clearly going to be worse!

And you miss a key point: whether capitalism is 'subjected to intolerable strains and ceases to effectively function at all' depends on the working class movement.

That will be a factor in the outcome...but "depends on" goes too far. That movement is called into existence by the increasing failure of capitalism to "work".

Not by an intellectual minority with some "correct ideas".

[Lenin] said: unless there is revolution in other countries, working class power cannot exist (i.e. 'only a compromise with the peasantry can save the revolution in Russia').

He got his "compromise with the peasantry" (the NEP)...and it didn't "save" squat!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

red_che

26th April 2006, 04:16

It's nice to be back after a long absence. :D

Redstar:

"Educated representatives of the propertied classes" must be available to "lead the party" because workers themselves "can't do it." They are "not educated" enough.

One can certainly understand the plausibility of this view in Lenin's era...when education was a class privilege.

Do you think it makes sense now?

From the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx says:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.(emphasis is mine)

Well, even Marx recognize the fact that not all workers know exactly their condition of being enslaved, and that not all workers have enough time to theorize, maybe because the workers are busy with their work. And that some portion of the intelligentsia, I mean the revolutionary ones, and the advanced section of the proletariat do have this opportunity to think and theorize for the proletariat. Althought this doesn't mean the proletariat doesn't have the consciousness, it just happens that they are busy with their laboring that they don't have enough time to theorize. That is why Lenin, and in fact the Communist Manifesto, manifests this factual condition.

Redstar, I think you're just trying to confuse everybody. You had been ranting about Lenin being at fault for everything, but you haven't done anything, you and your crazy idea is nothing. Sorry for being rude. ;)

I vote for "couldn't be done". In the "west", the Leninist party is the wrong tool for the job.

Well, if you think your idea is the right tool, what have you done so far?

redstar2000

26th April 2006, 11:27

Originally posted by red_che
And that some portion of the intelligentsia, I mean the revolutionary ones, and the advanced section of the proletariat do have this opportunity to think and theorize for the proletariat.

I repeat: if that was true in Marx's time and Lenin's time, is it still true?

Can it possibly be true in the "age of the internet"?

You imagine that "nothing can be done" unless there are some Leninists around to "think for the proletariat".

That simply makes no sense any more.

Redstar, I think you're just trying to confuse everybody.

Of course I am. :lol:

It's part of my "secret plan to conquer the world". :lol:

You had been ranting about Lenin being at fault for everything, but you haven't done anything, you and your crazy idea is nothing.

Which is why all the Leninists on the board reply to my posts in such vehement terms. :lol:

If my "crazy ideas" prevail, then you all are out of a job! :o

Well, if you think your idea is the right tool, what have you done so far?

Convinced a few young revolutionaries that Leninism is a waste of time.

And so is "dialectics".

And annoyed quite a fair number of Leninists.

Not bad for an "old guy". :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Vanguard1917

27th April 2006, 12:11

If that was true then there would have been one!

There wasn't.

There wasn't because, maybe, the subjective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism were not there.

Looks that way to me.

Losing the Battle of the Streets -- Reflections on the KPD 1930-33

But in that link you seem to argue (with some justification) that, for example, had the KPD put more resources into the Red Front and less into parliamentary campaigns, fascism would have been better confronted. So the rise of fascism was not inevitable after all; the policies of the communist party were consequential... they mattered.

Has anything happened in the last couple of centuries to invalidate my "cynicism"?

I don't know what you mean by "economism" in this context...I suspect you are referring to historical materialism but just want to make it "sound bad".

Marxists.org gives a good explanation of economism (link (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/c.htm#economism)):

'In 1899 there appeared Credo, a manifesto of the "economists," which was drawn up by E.D. Kuskova. When Lenin, then in exile, received a copy of Credo, he wrote A Protest by Russian Social Democrats, in which he sharply criticized the programme of the economists. The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.

In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the economists were against the importance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, and instead asserted that socialist ideology could arise out of the spontaneous movement. Since they were against instilling working class values in workers, Lenin explained, they then were in fact preaching for the continuation of instilling bourgeois values in workers.'

The Credo's position on political action pretty much sums up your position. You too would like to limit the party to merely observing the 'spontaneous process of the movement and register events', and you downplay the 'importance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness'. This is not historical materialism - it's historical fatalism.

redstar2000

27th April 2006, 18:20

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)There wasn't because, maybe, the subjective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism were not there.[/b]

You suggest here that "if only" Lenin, Trotsky, et.al., had been German and had started a Vanguard Party in 1902 in Germany, that there would have "therefore" existed the proper "subjective" conditions for proletarian revolution in Germany in 1919.

Or something along those lines?

If so, then you are perforce trapped into a view of history that relies on "great men" to "get the job done".

By your own logic, there can never be a successful proletarian revolution "until" another "Lenin" or "Trotsky" appears.

Do you honestly believe that this view has anything in common with Marxism???

But in that link you seem to argue (with some justification) that, for example, had the KPD put more resources into the Red Front and less into parliamentary campaigns, fascism would have been better confronted. So the rise of fascism was not inevitable after all; the policies of the communist party were consequential... they mattered.

No, I suspect something "like fascism" was probably "inevitable" at that point in German history.

It didn't "have to be" Nazism...but it was going to resemble Nazism in many important respects.

Yes, I think the KPD could have "done better"...but considering their size and strength, probably not "better enough" to overcome a massive trend in the other direction.

I don't think there was any possible way for them to make a proletarian revolution in the period 1930-33.

Originally posted by Marxist.com+--> (Marxist.com)The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie.[/b]

This hardly has anything to do with my position...which is one of indifference to the ritual dance of "capital and labor" in late capitalism. I am only interested in struggles that break out of the official channels of "conflict resolution".

Nor have I ever expressed anything but contempt for the modern "liberal" bourgeoisie.

[email protected]
They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.

I suspect that this "summary" is an unfair one...possibly distorted beyond recognition. There would be no point to even having a "party" if the only thing it was going to do was "observe".

People can "observe" all by themselves...you don't need a "party" to do that.

Perhaps what they disputed with Lenin was the idea of a party that would "lead the masses", preferring to rely on the spontaneous rise of the masses themselves.

If so, it was a prescient position. The Bolsheviks did not "lead the masses" in February 1917 and neither did anyone else. They "led themselves".

As you undoubtedly know, Lenin himself complained bitterly upon his return to Petrograd that the masses were "far to the left" of the Vanguard Party. :lol:

That's usually the case when the masses spontaneously rise.

Marxists.com
In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the economists were against the importance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, and instead asserted that socialist ideology could arise out of the spontaneous movement.

That is literally an incoherent statement.

Evidently, the "economists" thought that the really important "revolutionary theory" would spontaneously arise from the masses...and not as a product of a small group of upper-class intellectuals.

They were at least partly right: the soviets were invented by the working class spontaneously. None of the "famous names" of social democracy had a clue that something like that was going to happen in 1905. They were all, including Lenin, thinking of winning power in a bourgeois "democracy" and enacting socialism "by degree".

We know how that worked out. :lol:

Which doesn't stop Trotskyists to this day from dutifully running for bourgeois public office. :o

So...I can see where my views parallel in some ways the views of the Russian "economists" and in other ways depart significantly from their views.

They were living in the last years of a feudal aristocracy; and I think that I am living in the "last years" of a bourgeois aristocracy...even if it may take another 50-100 years to "do the deed".

They "expected" a bourgeois revolution in Russia and I expect a series of proletarian revolutions in the "old" capitalist countries.

It would have made sense for them to support the "left bourgeoisie" in Russia...insofar as they existed.

That option does not exist today, of course. Proletarian revolution is the only option now.

I think we who are revolutionaries should do whatever we can to "speed the day"...but I am not under any illusions about our "historical indispensability".

If every single communist in the whole wide world suffered a fatal heart attack this afternoon, proletarian revolution and communism would still happen.

Maybe a year or two later than otherwise. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Axel1917

29th April 2006, 06:55

Leninism (Trotskyism) and Marxism are the same thing. Leninism is merely carrying on the development of Marxism into today's world of capitalism being in the stage of imperialism. The Anarchists and ultra-lefts don't know what they are talking about. 321Zero made a good point about redstar2000 and Co. attacking straw "Lennies" instead of actually addressing actual points.

redstar2000

29th April 2006, 11:30

Originally posted by Axel1917
Leninism (Trotskyism) and Marxism are the same thing.

The Maoists disagree with you.

So do the Marxists. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

JimFar

29th April 2006, 13:35

redstar2000 wrote:

QUOTE (Axel1917)
Leninism (Trotskyism) and Marxism are the same thing.

The Maoists disagree with you.

So do the Marxists.

I guess it all depends on who the "true" Marxists are. Is it the Stalinists? The Maoists? The Trotskyists? The council communists?

The again, Engels quoted Marx as having once said, "Je ne suis pas, un marxist."

Vanguard1917

4th May 2006, 16:56

You suggest here that "if only" Lenin, Trotsky, et.al., had been German and had started a Vanguard Party in 1902 in Germany, that there would have "therefore" existed the proper "subjective" conditions for proletarian revolution in Germany in 1919.

Or something along those lines?

If so, then you are perforce trapped into a view of history that relies on "great men" to "get the job done".

By your own logic, there can never be a successful proletarian revolution "until" another "Lenin" or "Trotsky" appears.

Do you honestly believe that this view has anything in common with Marxism???

I was at the point of giving up here, since your 'misinterpretations' of my argument are a bit too much to bear. Here is what i do think though: if Leninism had had a greater influence in Germany in the first quater of the 20th century, things may well have turned out differently. Instead, the greatest influence on the working class in this period was the politics of opportunistic reformism.

This is not because Lenin and Trotsky were not there, but because the political struggles that gave way to the great revolutionary Leninist movement in Russia were not successful in Germany. Of course there were objective differences between Russia and Germany; but the rise of reformism within the working class movement in Germany at that time was first and foremost a subjective problem that could have been confronted more effectively in the presence of a more effective political struggle within the workers' movement.

Sure, blaming the rise of anti-working class politics (e.g. reformism) on 'objective conditions' alone allows us make convenient excuses. But in a revolutionary situation (like the one that existed in Germany), where the masses rise up against capitalism, those who mislead the working class away from the revolutionary alternative need to be defeated. This is where a revolutionary political struggle against the reactionaries becomes vital... if there is to be a socialist revolution.

No, I suspect something "like fascism" was probably "inevitable" at that point in German history.

It didn't "have to be" Nazism...but it was going to resemble Nazism in many important respects.

Yes, I think the KPD could have "done better"...but considering their size and strength, probably not "better enough" to overcome a massive trend in the other direction.

Then why should anyone have bothered to do anything? If fascism was inevitable, why advocate the existance of a communist opposition? Why argue that the KPD should have 'this' and not 'that' if any action against the rise of fascism was doomed to end in failure?

If every single communist in the whole wide world suffered a fatal heart attack this afternoon, proletarian revolution and communism would still happen.

Maybe a year or two later than otherwise.

It depends on how long it will take for a new generation of communists to reorganise. In times of class peace, communism usually becomes increasingly irrelevant to society, regardless of how many 'communists' there are dabbling in 'Marxism' within the four walls of their academic offices. But in times of class war, a communist revolution can only take place if there are communists in society winning the masses over to communism. If not, the masses will be 'won over' (i.e. defeated) to reactionary ideas, and there will not a working class revolution.

redstar2000

4th May 2006, 20:38

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Then why should anyone have bothered to do anything?

Because we don't know in advance how things are "going to turn out".

We try to "push history" in the direction we want it to go...but even those equipped with "dialectical" magic wands don't really know what the outcome is going to be.

Historical materialism can tell us why things happened the way they did...but it can't tell is, except in very limited ways, what's going to happen.

We "place our bets" and "roll the dice".

One thing historical materialism is especially useful for: it gives us a good idea of the odds.

We need not "bet" on organized reformism, for example. We know that it never results in working class power.

And we all should see where all the bets on Leninism ended up...back in the dealer's tray. :o

That's why it's time to start making different bets.

But in times of class war, a communist revolution can only take place if there are communists in society winning the masses over to communism. If not, the masses will be 'won over' (i.e. defeated) to reactionary ideas, and there will not a working class revolution.

The presence of conscious communists is helpful...but not "absolutely necessary". In a revolutionary situation, those very conditions create conscious communists.

The masses are not "inevitably won over" to reactionary ideas. In fact, it could well be argued that as often as not the masses are considerably to the left of the "conscious communists".

If Lenin was right, that should "never happen".

But it does.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

red_che

7th May 2006, 07:32

Because we don't know in advance how things are "going to turn out".

We try to "push history" in the direction we want it to go...but even those equipped with "dialectical" magic wands don't really know what the outcome is going to be.

Historical materialism can tell us why things happened the way they did...but it can't tell is, except in very limited ways, what's going to happen.

Hmmm...

But your explanation is short, and lacks the necessary scientific outlook.

Marx said, "history does nothing, it does not possess riches, it does not fight battles. It is men, real, living, who do all this."

Of course, we don't know what is the exact picture of the future, but at least we can hypothesize based on historical events, and conditions of today.

Communists are not here just to wait and see what happens. Communists are not here just to sit down and do nothing.

The Communists' tasks are precisely to change the current situation of the proletariat and change the status quo.

And I can say that Leninism and Maoism did push the proletarian movement a leap farther than it was.

We "place our bets" and "roll the dice".

One thing historical materialism is especially useful for: it gives us a good idea of the odds

Now, this is really not scientific. This places the entire proletarian movement into gamble where the only guiding principle is "speculation" and "chances".

I am sure, even scientists disagree with this kind of "experimentation."

Only gamblers in Nevada believe in this principle being put forward by a man who calls himself "Redstar2000". ;)

No communist would want to put the proletarian struggle into jeopardy because of unscientific speculations.

redstar2000

7th May 2006, 08:10

The future is not "known" simply because you proclaim that you know it.

Revolution is a "gamble"...what do you think Lenin was betting on in October 1917 if not a European revolution that would "save his ass"?

In fact, action is always a gamble...and so is inaction, by the way.

Yes, a more scientific understanding of "how revolutions happen" would be enormously helpful...but we don't have that now.

With historical materialism, we can extrapolate a little into the future...but usually not by very much. If we do try a "long range" prediction, it's necessarily so broad and sweeping as to not offer any useful details.

One of the best "predictions" that Marx and Engels ever made was a "1789" coming to Russia "soon" and as a result of "a war with Germany".

They both agreed about this in the late 1870s...about 40 years before those things actually happened.

Astonishing accuracy over such a long period!

But suppose you were a Russian Marxist in 1880 equipped with this prediction; what could you do with it? How would it help you organize people? To do what?

Maybe you could write and secretly circulate a pamphlet comparing France in 1780 to Russia in 1880...showing people the marked similarities and urging them to prepare themselves for a revolutionary transformation of Czarist society.

You could try and whip up tensions between Russia and Germany to "get that war started"...but underground supporters of Marx did not have that sort of influence in policy-making circles.

The prediction, however good, doesn't tell you "what to do next" in any useful detail

Originally posted by red_che
Now, this is really not scientific.

Probabilities are just as "scientific" as any other branch of mathematics. If one is inclined to gamble in a casino, some bets lose less often than others...and the "smart gambler" knows what those bets are.

Of course, we don't have a "mathematics of revolution"...and what an enormous leap forward it would be if we did.

Instead, it's a "hunch bet"...things sort of "look like" they might be "possible" so we "take the plunge" and "bet the farm" on the outcome.

Beware of anyone who tells you that this time "victory is inevitable"...that it's a "sure bet".

Ain't no such thing. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

red_che

7th May 2006, 08:38

Revolution is a "gamble"...

I beg to disagree.

Revolution is a scientific action that is to be undertaken by the proletariat in order to change their condition and end the exploitation of man by man. If it is some kind of gamble, it's not the way you think of it. It is more than a gamble. It is a struggle.

what do you think Lenin was betting on in October 1917 if not a European revolution that would "save his ass"?

He wasn't betting. He and the revolutionary Russian proletariat were waging a revolution.

Yes, a more scientific understanding of "how revolutions happen" would be enormously helpful...but we don't have that now.

What a pity you don't have that understanding, I believe all the proletarian parties in the world do have that scientific understanding, and that is quite consolidated in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, except of course those who do not accept MLM.

One of the best "predictions" that Marx and Engels ever made was a "1789" coming to Russia "soon" and as a result of "a war with Germany".

They both agreed about this in the late 1870s...about 40 years before those things actually happened.

Actually, these are not predictions. These are scientific hypothesis based on the conditions. And yes, it worked.

Now, as I said we cannot be very specific into the details of the future, but at least we can create hypothesis based on actual conditions as to what could be done in order to win the revolution.

Probabilities are just as "scientific" as any other branch of mathematics. If one is inclined to gamble in a casino, some bets lose less often than others...and the "smart gambler" knows what those bets are.

But, the revolution is not like this kind of gambling the way you picture it. The revolution needs more than just probabilities in gambling. Revolution needs more data out of actual struggles and historical developments.