Leninism: Please no posts from anarchists

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'm wondering if anyone leninist could explain leninism and its platform in the 21st century to me because the only thing I understand of it is from anarchist's views.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I would like to know this too.

The terms get confused so much, with all the historical connotations.

For example, is marxism-leninism what came to now days be described as stalinism?

And leninism is just trotskyism?

[YKTMX]

Leninism - what a strange term.

First of all, I'd consider Leninism to be merely a development of Marx. Indeed, as I've said before, you can't be a Marxist and not a Leninist.

OK, I'll outline3 basic things about Leninism that are the most "controversial". Lenin wrote about lots of things, including nationalism, imperialism, women's rights, Ireland, Britain etc. But I think these are his three most important insights.


1) The working class is, as we know, wedded, most of the time, to a reformist consciousness. That's not hard to see, is it? It's common sense. Right, but there are some workers who are not. There are some workers who, for whatever reason, break with reformist or bourgeois ideas. These people might not be, indeed probably won't be, "revolutionary" straight away. But, through a process of struggle and a day-to-day interaction with Marxist theory within the party, these people could be, eventually, won to revolutionary socialism permanently.

Lenin argued that these people who had broken from reformism had to be organized into a Party. Why? The party offers not only a "haven" from the daily onslaught of bourgeois ideas, it also gives the most partisan members of the class a chance to "pool their resources". Remember, they are strong and we are weak only because we lack their organization and theoretical clarity. THEY know what they want, don't they? Rupert Murdoch KNOWS what's in his interests, and he organizes his companies to make sure his interests are represented. The working class, Lenin argued, should do the same. We should have our own organizations, that represent US and only us - a Communist Party. This party, comprising as it did, the most advanced workers, students and intellectuals, would form a "vanguard of the class". Now, controversial term, we know? What does it mean though?

2) The Vanguard Party represents, interprets, divines, discusses and debates the interests of the working class as a whole. The working class, like any social force, has "interests", yes? These interests are knowable and can be explained. The job of the vanguard party is not to pander to people. The vanguard may be "popular" at times and "unpopular" at others - it's not important. The important thing is that the objective interests of the class are expressed clearly and without equivocation at all times. This party, Lenin said, would be run along the lines of democratic centralism.

3) Democratic centralism does what it says on the tin. We are both organized democratically but also centrally. We are democratic in that we debate everything. Everything is open to the party membership, all options are considered, and a member can express any opinion he likes on a particular topic when it is being considered. All positions within the party are voted on. No one has a divine "Right" to lead the party. Leadership exists because the membership wills it to exist.

We are also centralized in that once a decision is made, everyone in the party sticks to it, even if they disagree with the original decision- the so-called "party line". You'll hear this term mocked. But why is it important? Anarchists will tell the "party line" is undemocratic and tyrannical. But imagine a strike. If the Trade Union votes 60-40 to go on strike, then what happens? Does the 40 percent who voted against the strike just "go to work" anyway? No, of course not, why? Because the strike would be ineffectual. It's just the same in politics. In order for a clear message to be articulated, it must articulated by the entire party. If you really can't stomach a policy, then just bite your tongue.

Look at Pravda for this: in the early days of the revolution, the Bolsheviks had absolutely blazing rows about all sorts of things, from Brest-Litovsk to NEP to militarization to the conduct of the war. Then look at it in the 1930's. You think comrade Stalin took criticism of his policies? Nah.


Anyway, that's long and dull. But that's my go at an introduction. Read Lenin for yourself. Despite the impression, he was quite a witty writer.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

That sounds good but let's say we decide democratically to have an army (Just an example). Then 5 years later, we, democratically, don't want an army anymore. What would happen?

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:27 AM
That sounds good but let's say we decide democratically to have an army (Just an example). Then 5 years later, we, democratically, don't want an army anymore. What would happen?
You'd get crushed by the anarchists ;)