Lenin and the Bolsheviks

[LSD]

There is a tendency towards excessive centralization in Leninism but this is because countries supposedly attempting to follow Marxist-Leninism around the world have been subject to imperialist barrages and a central command is very useful in fighting imperialism.

That's one explanation, personally though, I tend to think that it goes back to Lenin himself. The fact is the Bolshevik party was not your ordinary communist party. I'm not one to harp on the specific details of the Russian Revolution, but I think that it's important to remember that the Bolsheviks were rather uniquely authoritarian in their management.

Unfortunately, I think that many people learned the wrong lesson from the October Revolution. Far too many communist parties starting thinkin that in order to gain power, one must be "as disciplined" as the Bolsheviks.

The thing is though, the Bolsheviks had something that no future party ever would: Lenin. The fact is Lenin was a genius. In terms of management, in terms of politics, in terms of social understanding, in terms of pure political intuition, he is unrivaled by any communist leader before or since.

With this kind of phenomenal leadership, the Bolsheviks could afford to let their leadership make all the rules. It wasn't "how they were running things" that let them outsmart their oponents, it was who was running things.

If the Bolsheviks had been run democratically, there can really be no doubt that Lenin would have been in charge anyway and that his line would have dominated. The fact that they happened to be run "democratically centralist" is just an accident of history, and one that has been repeated far too often.

If communism is about liberating people than it needs to run its party on libertine principles. No more "leader cults" or "centralist" bullshit about "iron discipline".

Once you allow one person or one cadre to have absolute control, you lose all ability to check them. You lose the very mass consciousness that is at the heart of Marxism.

Stalin was only able to rise to power becasue he operated within an already authoritarian system. If he had been subject to democratic controlls, he never would have been able to excersize the power he ultimately did.

It's the same way that Hitler was able to exploit the power of the Weimar Presidency to deal his way into power.

Personal power perpetuates itself. Lenin might have been an able leader but Stalin wasn't and we all know the result. The only way that Stalin could have been prevented from rising was if the precedent was never set, if the cult of the individual had never been established.

Obviously we need to make damned sure that we don't repeat these mistakes.


Left communist participatory democracy doesn't have a very good track record of repelling imperialism.

That's because it's never really been given the chance. The "lessons" of the Russian Revolution were misinterpreted for too much of the twentieth century and the historical accident that is modern Leninism unfortunately came to dominate communist thinking.


Leninist democracy does [have a very good track record of repelling imperialism].

So does fascism.


I don't understand how an economy not geared to lining the pockets of the bourgeoisie can be considered "capitalist".

Because it is organized along "market" principles and serves to line the pockets of the despotic state; hence "state capitalist".

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by LSD
Unfortunately, I think that many people learned the wrong lesson from the October Revolution. Far too many communist parties starting thinkin that in order to gain power, one must be "as disciplined" as the Bolsheviks.

The thing is though, the Bolsheviks had something that no future party ever would: Lenin. The fact is Lenin was a genius. In terms of management, in terms of politics, in terms of social understanding, in terms of pure political intuition, he is unrivaled by any communist leader before or since.

I completely agree with you on that.

But now...why don't you accept the fact that other parties can have their own "Lenin"? Or are you saying that he was a "godlike figure", a kind of "messiah" who can never be "resurrected"?

EDIT: I disagree with the first part of the section I quoted.

[LSD]

But now...why don't you accept the fact that other parties can have their own "Lenin"?

I do! I'm just equally aware that there's no way to tell in advance when a "leader" will be particularly good and, accordingly, it's important that all power be bottom-up rather than top-down.

Again, if the Bolsheviks had been a democratic party, Lenin still would have dominated. The only difference would have been that he would have laid the foundation for a democratic "workers' state" to follow and Stalin would never have achieved absolute power.

Good theoreticians are needed, but their ideas can be implemented by a radical working class. There is no need for "iron discipline" or "democratic" centralism. The real lesson of the Russian Revolution is that there is no substitute for sound organization.

That Lenin happened to have an anti-democratic streak is an unfortunate accident and a blemish on his otherwise astounding record. If he had only "ruled" as he had theorized, the Soviet Union might be somwhere today.

As it is, "Leninism" has become one of the more tragic chapters of twentieth century socialism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)Again, if the Bolsheviks had been a democratic party, Lenin still would have dominated. The only difference would have been that he would have laid the foundation for a democratic "workers' state" to follow and Stalin would never have achieved absolute power.
[/b]

I agree, but how exactly was the Bolshevik party, and democratic centralism, not democratic?

Of course I acknowledge the fact that it was not completely democratic, but that is understandable given the fact that Russia was ruined economically, had a civil war, etc.

In such a case "iron discipline" is required to hold everything together.


Good theoreticians are needed, but their ideas can be implemented by a radical working class. There is no need for "iron discipline" or "democratic" centralism. The real lesson of the Russian Revolution is that there is no substitute for sound organization.


So you do not oppose political parties? You agree that the Bolshevik party was supported -and based on- the radical working class?

If so, you are making good progress in your views. Most, if not all, anarchists basically just say "Lenin was a dumb lol" and that's all their argument amounts to, but you're actually recognizing the fact that Lenin was a genius, and correct most of the time in his views.

The only difference is that you oppose the superstructure of the party he created, because it gave rise to Stalin. I agree with you, but do you realize that "Lenin the theoretician" wanted to get rid of that superstructure himself after the revolution?

Here is my proof:


"Last Testament": Letters to Congress (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/index.htm)
Dec. - Jan. 1923: The first in the series of documents to follow, Lenin begins formulating a program for the rebuilding of the Soviet government. The first two letters focus on reducing bureaucratism in the State Planning Commission and the Central Committee, while the third letter deals with the necessity of ensuring minority cultures in Russia have national self-determination. Lenin emphasises the need to make these changes to the Soviet government and warns of potentially disasterous consequences if the necessary but difficult steps are not taken. These works begin Lenin's early and incredibly insightful critique of the Soviet government; notably suggesting the removal of Stalin.

How we should reorganise the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/23.htm)
Jan. 23, 1923: "Our Central Committee has grown into a strictly centralised and highly authoritative group, but the conditions under which this group is working are not concurrent with its authority." Lenin explains that the bureaucratic apparatus of the Soviet state is nearly identical to the czarist government, save for a slightly "touched up surface". Lenin suggests combining the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection with the Central Control Commission, and decreasing the former' s membership to improve efficiency while increasing the latter's membership with more peasants and workers. Lenin stresses that the powers of the increasingly powerful Politburo be governed by the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection.

And most importantly, in his own words:


Lenin
All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.

Given all that fact, LSD, do you now accept the fact that Lenin and his party were not able to fulfill these measures due to occurrences out of their power (civil war, economic ruin, etc.)? If so, do you agree that we should make sure that those measures are enacted the next time we are in a position to enact them?

If your answer to that is yes, I would consider you a comrade of mine, a Leninist comrade of mine.

[LSD]

I agree, but how exactly was the Bolshevik party, and democratic centralism, not democratic?

"Democratic" centralism is a contradiction in terms. In theory, it's a "military like" way of organizing working people; in reality, it's a rationalization for one-man despotism.

Hell, even the word "Bolshevik" is a misnomer, a claim of "majority" that never really existed.

From it's very inception the Leninist camp was anti-democratic, and uniquely so. Other "left socialist" parties in Russia at that time did not organize themselvers along "iron discipline" lines. There was nothing "special" about Russia that required an abandonment of basic enlightenment priniciples.

Democracies are not "hijacked" and revolutions are not "betrayed" by nefarious villains acting alone. History just isn't that melodramatic.

The fact is, the party machinery that Lenin put in place was centralized and authoritarian from the begining. Lenin came up with many rationalizations for this, yes, but the simple fact remians that the system was ripe for abuse long before Stalin came along.

And if it hadn't been Stalin it would have been someone else. That kind of leadership vacuum doesn't just "dissappear" after all. Power perpetuates itself.


You agree that the Bolshevik party was supported -and based on- the radical working class?

I agree that the Bolsheviks were carried to power by the working class, but they never ruled "on behalf" of it, nor did they ever form anything that could be fairly called a "workers' state".

I'll concede that the Russian workers certainly believed that the Bolsheviks could deliver class libereation, but the tragic reality was that the "party" never represented anything more than its own political interets.

This is not to say that Lenin or Trotsky were "bad", they just didn't understand that their form of substitutionism was ultimately untenable. Again, I truly believe that Lenin was one of the great Marxist theoreticians of the twentieh centiury. As a politician, however, he is distinctly lacking.

It would have been far better if his theories had been considered and debated by the entire revolutionary class. Many of them would have doubtlessly been adopted, but others, the more authoritarian ones, the ones coming from his petty-bourgeois origins, would have been rejected.

The problem with despotic subsitutionalism is that it has no room for debate and the problem with the "vanguard party" is that it does not represent the vanguard.


So you do not oppose political parties?

On the contrary, I support real working-class organization which means opposing the bourgeois "political party" however it manifests itself. Workers need coherent solidarity, but it must come from the factory floor not the Parliamentary cabinet.

Sorry to dissapoint you Massoud, but I will never accept the "need" for the "party". Real class struggle does not come from statesment and politicians, it comes from workers.

We have no need for "managers" or "chairmen", we can organize ourselves all on our own.


do you realize that "Lenin the theoretician" wanted to get rid of that superstructure himself after the revolution?

Yes I do. And that's one of the great tragedies of "Lenin the theoretician", that "Lenin the politician" would ultimately set the course.


do you agree that we should make sure that those measures are enacted the next time we are in a position to enact them?

No. I think that while Lenin's programme was adequate for Russia in 1917, it is anachronistic for 2006. We are not living in a feudalist agrarian hellhole, we are not restricted to teletype communications, and we can travel above 40 KpH.

We are the position today to dispense entirely with the bourgeoois state and all its institutions.

In 1917, a "red" state would have a been a progressive leap forward for Russia. Today, in the first world, it would be a lateral move at best.


If your answer to that is yes, I would consider you a comrade of mine, a Leninist comrade of mine.

I consider you a comrade, Massoud, but I am not and never will be a "Leninist".


So does it mean tht the whole of the CCP are always greedy?

I think that the early revolutionaries were sincere albeit misguided in their efforts.

Many of those who&#39;ve joined the party since the "reforms" of &#39;76, however, are indeed in it for their own material interest. Like any other capitalsit system, there&#39;s profit to be made if you know the right people... <_<

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:39 PM
Other "left socialist" parties in Russia at that time did not organize themselvers along "iron discipline" lines.
Remind me again how that worked out LSD. Personally I&#39;d have imagined that you would have had a problem with the Mensheviks or SR&#39;s joining the Provisional Government.

If "democratic centralism" did nothing else then at least it kept the Bolshviks free from the liberals that would co-opt the other "left socialist" parties to the cause of the bourgeoisie.

[LSD]

Remind me again how that worked out LSD.

I really can&#39;t say.

As I recall, the Bolsheviks had most of them arrested following the coup of October 1917.

[ComradeOm]

I&#39;ll make it even easier for you then. Following the February Revolution did the Mensheviks and SR&#39;s:

A) Refuse to co-operate with the Provisional Government
B) Join the Provisional Government

Answers on a postcard please.

[LSD]

And from this you conclude... what?? That democracy "doesn&#39;t work" &#39;cause the SR&#39;s were assholes?

Talk about extending the "lessons of October" too far.. :rolleyes:

[ComradeOm]

Or... perhaps that "democratic centralism" actually did what it said on the tin and served to keep the Bolsheviks free of liberal influences? :o

[LSD]

If so, it also served to keep them free of democratic influences and left them right open for exploitation.

The securest form of government is one-man rule. With one leader, there is no chance of splits or arguments or indecisions. With one leader, "influences" are not an issue. If securitities the issue, despotism&#39;s the way to go.

The thing is, though, security is not enough. Class war is not just about removing the bourgeoisie, it&#39;s also about replacing them with something better. We don&#39;t want to trade in our bosses for new masters, we want an end to masters, whether they call themselves "Kings" or "Presidents" or "CEOS" or "Comissars".

"Democratic" centralism does a very good job at the "centralizing" part, it does a much worse job at the "democracy" part. And if there&#39;s on thing that the history of twentieth century revolution has taught us it&#39;s that democracy is non-negotiable&#33;

[ComradeOm]

Were there flaws in the Bolshevik implementation of democratic centralism? Probably. Did it achieve its aim of preventing the infiltration of the Party by petite-bourgeois liberals? Certainly.

The Bolshevik leadership in 1917 was incredibly vibrant and varied as different members of the committee represented the various strands of worker thought. People tend to forget that Lenin had to argue for hours on end to get his positions adopted… including such crucial issues such as the date of revolution. This is despite the democratic centralism that so many consider as anti-democratic.

If you really want to trace the roots of Stalin&#39;s dictatorship then the anti-factionalism motion at the Tenth Party Congress is a far more tangible cause for the breakdown of democracy.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by LSD
"Democratic" centralism is a contradiction in terms. In theory, it&#39;s a "military like" way of organizing working people; in reality, it&#39;s a rationalization for one-man despotism.


It is certainly not a contradiction in terms. You say that in reality it is rationalization for one-man despotism, but that "in theory it is a "military like" way of organizing working people".

I don&#39;t understand how what democratic centralism is in theory is not what it is in reality...please explain how the theory of a concept can differ from its use in practice if the theory is not revised (a better word would be perverted)?

You can&#39;t explain it. Therefore you have to agree that what democratic centralism became under Stalin was not what it was under Lenin, i.e., the theory was perverted to become the reality you accurately described as rationalization for one-man despotism.

I support the former (original) theory. You use the latter (perverted) theory as proof of the failure of the former, sorry but it doesn&#39;t work that way.


Hell, even the word "Bolshevik" is a misnomer, a claim of "majority" that never really existed.


If I recall correctly they decided to use the name Bolshevik due to their politics, which was meant to be beneficial for the majority of the population. They didn&#39;t use to hint at their member numbers.


From it&#39;s very inception the Leninist camp was anti-democratic, and uniquely so. Other "left socialist" parties in Russia at that time did not organize themselvers along "iron discipline" lines.

Being organized along "iron discipline" does not equal the ruling out of democracy. This is what Democratic Centralism is (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e.htm#democratic-centralism).

If you have any valid criticisms, please provide them, do not, however, pretend that your word is correct and factual without any substantial evidence.


The fact is, the party machinery that Lenin put in place was centralized and authoritarian from the begining. Lenin came up with many rationalizations for this, yes, but the simple fact remians that the system was ripe for abuse long before Stalin came along.

And if it hadn&#39;t been Stalin it would have been someone else. That kind of leadership vacuum doesn&#39;t just "dissappear" after all. Power perpetuates itself.

I agree with you on the matter that the party had to change it&#39;s nature post-revolution. The problem with your line of argument is that you do not seperate the party post-revolution from the party pre-revolution. There are major differences, not just internally, but also externally, in how the party worked, functioned, and interacted with its social environment.

Pre-revolution the party was illegal and persecuted. It&#39;s membership consisted of highly conscious and dedicated Communists. Democratic Centralism is the only way to lead such a party most effectively. I have yet to see any alternatives offered by you on how the party should have been led, without it losing effectivity in revolutionary activity.

Pre-revolution there has rarely, if ever, been problems with Democratic Centralism. Therefore, we as Marxists must conclude that Democratic Centralism (its original form, not the perverted Stalinist form) is a working theory.

Post-revolution is an entirely different matter. The party attained state-power, and with it millions of people joined it. It was no longer the small, highly organized, highly dedicated and conscious party which it once was. People joined the party for personal gain, for political gain, for economic gain etc.

In my opinion it was inevitable that such elements were suppressed by the Central Committee. The irony is, though, that by suppressing them they gave a tool to the Central Committee and Politburo which Stalin later used (abused) to gain supreme power inside the party.

Democratic Centralism was, as such, perverted. If Lenin&#39;s State and Revolution type of state was established this wouldn&#39;t have mattered, though, so it is not him that is to blame, instead if you want someone to blame it should be objective reality, which made it impossible for the State and Revolution type of state to be established.

My point is, establish the type of State Lenin spoke of, and Democratic Centralism is nothing to worry about post-revolution, since it is effectively meaningless, given that all power rests in the state-Soviets. Pre-revolution, however, there is nothing wrong with Democratic Centralism (the original concept, not the perverted).


Sorry to dissapoint you Massoud, but I will never accept the "need" for the "party". Real class struggle does not come from statesment and politicians, it comes from workers.

We have no need for "managers" or "chairmen", we can organize ourselves all on our own.


What if "the party" mainly (or fully) consists of proletarians? Would you oppose a proletarian party?

And, what if the proletariat votes in a leader (in a socialist state), would you oppose their choice? If so, does that not make you anti-proletarian?


I consider you a comrade, Massoud, but I am not and never will be a "Leninist".

I consider you a comrade also, but too bad I can&#39;t place "Leninist" or "Marxist" in front of that. :(

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 7 2006, 12:48 PM
If I recall correctly they decided to use the name Bolshevik due to their politics, which was meant to be beneficial for the majority of the population. They didn&#39;t use to hint at their member numbers.
Well obviously there are conflicting histories but I think LSD is right on this one. The terms Bolshevik and Menshevik (Majority and Minority respectively) dates from the 1903 Party Congress in which the Lenin faction had a majority on the Iskra editorial board (or Party central committee depending on your source).

Whether there was a Bolshevik majority in the actual Party is open to debate. Indeed given that the split had not yet occurred I&#39;d imagine that there was a significant middle ground between the Lenin and Martov camps.

[Led Zeppelin]

You could be right, I read it somewhere in an article which I cannot find at the moment.

EDIT: The point still stands though, they didn&#39;t use the term "Bolshevik" to lie about their size or something, as LSD was implying.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by LSD
I do&#33; I&#39;m just equally aware that there&#39;s no way to tell in advance when a "leader" will be particularly good and, accordingly, it&#39;s important that all power be bottom-up rather than top-down.

What if a leader like Lenin did emerge, and this was obvious? Should this have any impact on how we should organise?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

in terms of pure political intuition

Some examples of his political intuition?

[LSD]

Were there flaws in the Bolshevik implementation of democratic centralism? Probably.

You&#39;re damn right there were, and those "flaws" would go on to influence every Leninst party that followed.

Because the Bolsheviks&#39; "discipline" became associated with their "victory", every subsequent "revolutionary party" thought that it had to repeat that same mistake. The fact that the Bolsheviks got lucky in their implementation was sadly never realized.


I don&#39;t understand how what democratic centralism is in theory is not what it is in reality...

Then you have a remarkably naive view of politics.

Bourgeois "democracy" is in theory a fully representative participatory method of governance. In reality, however, it is a means to perpetuate class oppression.

"Democratic" centralism is no different. On paper it would allow complete democratic discussion, but by enforcing the authority of the "leadership" and holding centralism as the primary goal, the pratical power of the the "centre" is utterly dominant.

Assemblies can "debate" until their blue in the face, but the leadershp will always set the line and once that line is set any defiance constitutes "factionalism" and is brutally suppressed.

There&#39;s a reason that "Democratic" centralist governments rarely if ever change from the bottom and there&#39;s a reason that once in power, Leninist leaders tend to persist.

Look, Leninists are not "evil" or "insidious", most genuinely believe that they are representing the best interests of the class, ...but then Geroge Bush genuinely believes that he is "representing America".

Real democracy cannot be "centrlalized. By its nature it nescessitates disent.

In Canada, our political cabiner runs on what could be called "democratic centralist" lines. Meanwhile our Prime Minister has no theoretical executive power whatsover is just another member of Parliament.

Despite all this theory, the Canadian Office of the Prime Minister is commonly called "one of the most powerful parts of the government" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Prime_Minister&#39;s_Office).

Again, when it comes to "centralizing" democracy, theory doesn&#39;t matter, centralized power will always perpetuate itself and no matter how many theoretical "checks" are put into place, when the priority is "discipline" and "effectiveness", democracy will always be compromised.


Therefore you have to agree that what democratic centralism became under Stalin was not what it was under Lenin

No I don&#39;t.

"Democratic" institutions do not "become" "perverted". Stalin was able to achieve total power only because he operated within a governmental contex that was already geared towards personal power.

Frankly, the Trotskiest position on this issue makes no sense and really seems to more about protecting Trotsky&#39;s "good name" than providing a genuinely Marxist analysis of the Soviet Union.

Individuals do not define history. I understand that Trotsky had a problem with Stalin and I suppose it&#39;s comforting to accepts his "thesis" that Stalin "betrayed the revolution", but in all seriousness, even the Stalinist line seems more historically materialist.

Stalin and those around him had precisely as much authority as the system permitted. If the Bolshevik party or the Soviet government had been even marginally democratic, no one would have been able to "pervert" it. But, as it was, the party was more than ripe for one-man despotism.

Prior to 1924, that "one man" was Lenin. of course, and because of Lenin&#39;s unsual political abilities, it appeared that effective one-man rule, whatever it was called, might actually work.

But once Lenin died, the great flaw of absolute monarchiy reared its head: succession is inevtiable.


Pre-revolution the party was illegal and persecuted. It&#39;s membership consisted of highly conscious and dedicated Communists. Democratic Centralism is the only way to lead such a party most effectively.

Nonsense.

Decentralized autonomous autonomous resistance groups have proven themselves just as effective at resisting the efforts of law enforcement, if not more so. The more hierarchical and centralized a revolutionary organization, the more vulnerable it is to attacks at the top.

Besides, this is just another indication of the fundamental flaw of basing revolutionary activity on a fundamentally bourgeois institution like the political party.

Because the organiztion itself has no natural basis in proletarian life, meetings are nearly impossible and the role of the "leadership" becomes that much more important. Constant threat of "discovery" or "inflitration" makes participatory decision-making more and more subject to the "leading voice" and very soon we have virtual if not de juire one-man rule.

If, instead, proletarian resistance is made up of proletarian associations, real workers cannot help but be involved. No "central committee" will be "forced" to take the reigns and political action will flow from natural class war instead of from some artificial faux-"proletarian" petty-bourgeois "party"


Pre-revolution there has rarely, if ever, been problems with Democratic Centralism.

:blink:

You&#39;re joking right?

What do you call the RCP, massoud? "Democratic"? :lol:

How about the CCP preceding 1949? How about the CPY before 1945? All those "communist" parties that "Marxist-Leninists" so routinely condemn for holding the "wrong lines", if their leaders had not held such absolute power, those "wrong lines" might have been corrected.

And why do you think it is that "revolutionary parties" are so prone to splitting and fanctionalism? When there&#39;s no voice heard but the "leader&#39;s", people, especially politically committed people, tend to get frustrated and disillusioned.

Don&#39;t believe me? Ask one of your friends in the Communist League USA -- not affiliated with the Communist League of Great Britain, the Revolutioanry Communist League of France, or the former Communist League UK; also unaffiliated with the Socialist Workers Party (formerly the Communist League USA) or its associated parties such as the Communist League NZ, The Communist League of Canada, two Communist Leagues of Australia, etc...

Seriously, can you people say People&#39;s Front of Judea? :rolleyes:

And none of this even addresses the most important point, namely that you can&#39;t seperate "pre" from "post" revolution as if the two have no bearing on one another. The way that the "party" rules after a revolution is entirely determined by the way that it is run before-hand.

Democracy "pre-revolution" may be inconvenient, but it also essential if "post-revolution" we&#39;re going to actually serve someone other than the party elite.


Democratic Centralism was, as such, perverted. If Lenin&#39;s State and Revolution type of state was established this wouldn&#39;t have mattered, though, so it is not him that is to blame

Except it was him who was in charge. If he has wanted to establish a democratic system he could have. People like to cite Lenin&#39;s early writings as "proof" that he was a democrat at heart, but his actions in power speak louder than he theories in opposition.

Yes, times were hard and yes, they were under contant attack, but there is no point defending "socialism" if that "sociaism" is not actually socialist&#33;

Like I said earlier, the great tragedy of "Lenin the theoretician" is that, in the end, "Lenin the politican" set the course of Soviet policy. If the Lenin of "State and Revolution" had been the one organizing Russian economic, there might have been a decent chance of the Soviet Experiment proving successful.

As it was, Lenin doomed it from the beginning. By establishing a despotism instead of a democracy he nescessitated the rise of a brutal dictatorship.

Fiinding parallels between the Russian and French revolutions has become a bit of an historical obsession in recent years, but sometimes the similarities are too obvious not to mention. Lenin was, in more than one way, a remarkably Robbespierre-like figure.

Like Robbespierre, Lenin set himself up as absolute ruller so that he could "serve" the people, and like Robbespierre, when that absolute power finally fell into another&#39;s hands, it was used to undo every principle that he adhered to.

In the name of "efficiciency" and "discipline" thought that he could "put off" democracy until he was done with running the show. If we can learn anything from this tragic error it&#39;s that it&#39;s never too early to implement participatory management.


What if "the party" mainly (or fully) consists of proletarians?

I would still oppose it.

The composition of an organization&#39;s membership is not all that matters. After all, a fascist party could be "mainly (or fully" composed of proletarians too. That wouldn&#39;t make it a "proletarian party".

Many "labour" or "socialist" parties around the world are primiarly made up of working people, that doesn&#39;t make them any less a part of the bourgeois political process. And revolutionary politics do not come out of conformist collaboration.

The party system is itself a bourgeois creation and in its basic institutional nature, is fundamentally opposed to proletarian organization.

Workers do not have time to sit on party committees or attend party functions. They are far too busy, you know, working. Within that work, however, is the opportunity for genuine working class unity.

Instread of trying to force working people to fit into the bourgeois model of politics, why not construct a proletarian political model from the beginning?

Look, Massoud, let me make this clear to you. I reject the party in any form. As I see it, it has absolutely no role to play in revolutionary politics. And no appeals to 1917 or quotes from Lenin is going to make me change my mind on this subject.

The bourgeoisie could not establish true market capitalism until the fuedal king was gone, we cannot establish socialism until the bourgeois "Parliament" is gone.


And, what if the proletariat votes in a leader (in a socialist state), would you oppose their choice? If so, does that not make you anti-proletarian?


Yes I would and no it doesn&#39;t.

In opposing "representative government" I am not opposing the proletariat, I am opposing bourgeois republicanism.

It&#39;s no different from how your opposition to Stalin&#39;s "workers&#39; state" does not make you "anti-worker". Like your hypothetical "elected leader", Stalin claimed to rule for the people; but in both cases, it&#39;s a political elite that has all the real power.

Representative "democracy" does not work and is fundamentally incompatible with communism. Syndicalism is quite simply the only means pursuing a revolutionary proletarian agendy while remaining true to the actual proletariat.

We cannot succede the bourgeois by doing exactly what they do "with a red flag". Exploitation is at the hear of what the bourgeoisie is and so it is at the heart of their political model as well.

The bourgeois political process is what it is; it cannot be "made" to be proletarian.


What if a leader like Lenin did emerge, and this was obvious? Should this have any impact on how we should organise?

Not at all.

My point about Lenin was that Lenin&#39;s genius explains how the Bolsheviks were as successful as they were despite their horrific choice of organizational schemese.

As I said earlier, if they had been democratic, most of Lenin&#39;s ideas (save those on party management obviously) would have been adopted. "Democratic centralism" can only hurt. Good theories simply don&#39;t need it to survive.

Bad ones, however, thrive on it.

[YKTMX]

I don&#39;t know. I was willing to "have this out" with you LSD, but having read your post, it appears you&#39;ve offered absolutely no points to debate. You assert that Bolshevism was "uniquely authoritarian" and "undemocratic" yet you&#39;ve offered ZERO analysis of how Bolshevik Party organisation differed from other forms of organisation. You&#39;ve offered nothing on what was actually defective in Bolshevik structures or how these structures were moulded into Stalinism and into the framework of the Russian state. You said nothing about the role of the working class, the rank and the file or the Soviets in the Bolshevik Party. You&#39;ve given no explanation of how the Bolsheviks, such a ghastly and Stalinist bunch, were able to win the Russian working class and peasantry to revolutionary Marxism beyond praise for Lenin&#39;s "intuition". This gives the impression that only thing that lay between Makhno (or whoever) and mass support was Lenin&#39;s "brains". It couldn&#39;t be that the Bolsheviks were a part of an organic process of development which they helped shape and that they won the class over to Bolshevism after years of patient work in the broader class struggle, could it?

So, we can&#39;t really debate this since I don&#39;t accept the premise i.e hackneyed anarchist tropes about Lenin and Leninism.

[LSD]

I don&#39;t know. I was willing to "have this out" with you LSD, but having read your post, it appears you&#39;ve offered absolutely no points to debate.

I&#39;m sorry you feel that way.

Personally, I think that I&#39;ve been quite clear and consistant in my complaints regarding Leninist organizations in general and the Russian Bolsheviks in particular. I would suggest you re-read the portions where I address the nature of political party itself and the need for syndicalism as an approach to working class organizatiion.

I&#39;ll try to summarize and recap my arguments in this post, but it&#39;d really be easier if you&#39;d just go back and read them yourself.


You assert that Bolshevism was "uniquely authoritarian" and "undemocratic" yet you&#39;ve offered ZERO analysis of how Bolshevik Party organisation differed from other forms of organisation.

The Bolsheviks advertised their unique centralism, YKTMX, they were proud of it.

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve got a copy of What Is to Be Done? lying around, pick it up and start reading. It&#39;s not an "anarchist trope" that Lenin had an authoritarian streak and that the Bolsheviks and early Soviet government reflected this.

Hell even Massoud admits that the government that Lenin built was not the government that "Lenin the theoretician" had promised.


You&#39;ve offered nothing on what was actually defective in Bolshevik structures or how these structures were moulded into Stalinism and into the framework of the Russian state.

First of all, I reject that Bolshevik organizational structure was ever "moulded" into anything. Rather the undemocratic and repressive elements of "Stalinism" emerged whole from their Bolshevik parallels.

In terms of what was wrong with with Bolshevik party, as I&#39;ve repeatedly stated, the doctrine of "democratic" centralism is by its nature anti-democratic and nescessarily consolidates power along rigid hierarchical lines. Furthermore, the very formulation of a political party is antithetical to radical proletarian self-governance.

A party is designed to promote an ideology, the most "effective" means of doing this is to centralize and restrict power tp those who are most expert in and most dedicated to the said ideology.

A "workers&#39; state", however, or any other form of "socialist" government cannot be organized on such hierarchical lines or else management will stutilfy and the population at lage will become resistant to the government and eventually to socialism itself.

The bouregeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation, accordingly, all of their various political institutions are organized on hierarchical and anti-democratic lines. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.

The party cannot "direct" the war, YKTMX, it must be directed by it. Only then does it truly "organically develop" from working class revolutionary interests.


You&#39;ve given no explanation of how the Bolsheviks, such a ghastly and Stalinist bunch, were able to win the Russian working class and peasantry to revolutionary Marxism beyond praise for Lenin&#39;s "intuition".

That&#39;s because the Bolsheviks didn&#39;t "convert" the population. The Bolsheviks weren&#39;t some evangelical church spreading a new religion, they were a faction of a socialist party with strong roots across Russia.

They were also operating within remarkably revolutionary and radical times in which most of the working and peasant classes were already resistant to the existing government.

Remember, the February revolution was not a "Marxist" one, it was merely a popular, and generally left-leaning, insurrection against the Tsar.

After the failures of the Provisional Government many workers began to turn to Marxist principles, but many more simply turned to self-management and "trade-unionist" soliditarity.

When Lenin and the Bolsheviks launched the coup of October 1917, most workers were willing to give them a shot. Although they would soon see what a tragic mistake this would be, at the time they were unwilling to foster another civil war and hoped that the Bolsheviks could protect the gains of the revolution.

If another group had had the instincts and political will to sieze power, the Bolsheviks would be half a chapter in the history of Revolutionary Russia. Giving the "credit" for the radicalization of the Russian working class to a handful of Petrograd activists is to ignore the historical forces that Marxism is predicated on studying.


This gives the impression that only thing that lay between Makhno (or whoever) and mass support was Lenin&#39;s "brains". It couldn&#39;t be that the Bolsheviks were a part of an organic process of development which they helped shape and that they won the class over to Bolshevism after years of patient work in the broader class struggle, could it?

There was an organic process going on alright, but the Bolsheviks didn&#39;t "shape it".

In terms of Lenin&#39;s "brains", I&#39;d say that they were essential in explaining the successes that the Bolsheviks had as a minority party, although luck obviously had a significant role to play as well.

The Bolsheviks were, after all, in the right place at the right time. They also showed remarkably political skill in their ability to utilize unfolding events to serve their own party interests.

If anything the masses "shaped" the Bolsheviks and not without strong resistance from the party leadership itself. Again, this is where Lenin&#39;s "brains" came into play and where, had the party had inferior leadership, the inherent flaws of "democratic" centralism could have been fatal.

Good leadership can overcome many of the flaws of authoritarianism, not all of them to be sure, but many. Bad leadership, of course, is signficantly amplified by undemocratic hierarchy.

[JC1]

My 2 cent&#39;s;

LSD has yet to address the orginizational of norm&#39;s of democratic centralist orginization&#39;s. The Bolshevik party from its onset to its end in 1991, was always made up by a majority of worker&#39;s, and it&#39;s leadership early on was declassed intelectuals and workers. After that, The leadership exclusivly came from the ranks of the working class (No mechanism for privilidge-inheritance existed, becuase privlidge was party rank(Therefore, any worker in the party base had asmuch chance of becoming gensec as anyone)).

The Bolshevik Party had the tool&#39;s witch allowed its membership to participate. Anarchist orginizations offer a formal democracy, but the bolsheviks offered the real thing.

Even RedTsar admitted the democratic nature of the bolshevik press. Look at the all the opposing view points you would find in Iskra or any bolshevik paper, vs the zine of youre favourite anarchist part- network (same shit, diffrent pile).

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:11 PM
You&#39;re damn right there were, and those "flaws" would go on to influence every Leninst party that followed.

Because the Bolsheviks&#39; "discipline" became associated with their "victory", every subsequent "revolutionary party" thought that it had to repeat that same mistake. The fact that the Bolsheviks got lucky in their implementation was sadly never realized.
Generally I&#39;d agree with you on this. Despite what Lenin thought, and later shaped the ComIntern into, the Bolsheviks in October 1917 were a mass party in every sense of the word.

Where I&#39;d differ with you is in stating that this was a matter of "luck". The Bolsheviks were the party of choice for the Russian proletariat, amongst whom their popularity cannot be doubted, precisely because of the measures (read: democratic centralism) taken to immunise the Party from liberal radicals. While the world and his wife endorsed the liberals/Mensheviks in February, the Bolsheviks remained resolute in their programme. That was anything but luck.


Real democracy cannot be "centrlalized. By its nature it nescessitates disent.
And organisation, by its nature, requires centralisation.


Except it was him who was in charge. If he has wanted to establish a democratic system he could have. People like to cite Lenin&#39;s early writings as "proof" that he was a democrat at heart, but his actions in power speak louder than he theories in opposition.
Its that easy? Let&#39;s give it a try - I really, really want communism…

Hmmm that didn’t work too well. I wonder why… Oh yes, its that little matter of reality getting in the way. The material conditions were challenging, to say the least, in Russia. Lenin could have wished and wished and wished but it wouldn&#39;t have made a blind bit difference to the underlying material factors. As it was the Soviet government barely survived the Civil War… its hard to plan for a democratic future when the Whites are marching on Petrograd.

[LSD]

LSD has yet to address the orginizational of norm&#39;s of democratic centralist orginization&#39;s

Actually, I&#39;ve addressed it several times.


Originally posted by me
In terms of what was wrong with with Bolshevik party, as I&#39;ve repeatedly stated, the doctrine of "democratic" centralism is by its nature anti-democratic and nescessarily consolidates power along rigid hierarchical lines. Furthermore, the very formulation of a political party is antithetical to radical proletarian self-governance.

A party is designed to promote an ideology, the most "effective" means of doing this is to centralize and restrict power tp those who are most expert in and most dedicated to the said ideology.

A "workers&#39; state", however, or any other form of "socialist" government cannot be organized on such hierarchical lines or else management will stutilfy and the population at lage will become resistant to the government and eventually to socialism itself.

The bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation, accordingly, all of their various political institutions are organized on hierarchical and anti-democratic lines. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.

Revolutionary organizations cannot "direct" the war, they must be directed by the war. Only then does it truly "organically develop" from working class revolutionary interests.


The Bolshevik party from its onset to its end in 1991, was always made up by a majority of worker&#39;s

Which only goes to prove my point that organizational membership does not define organizational identity.

Unless you&#39;re claiming that "to its end", the CPSU was a proletarian party and the Soviet Government was a "workers&#39; state", you must acknowledge that an organization can be effectively bourgeois even when its largely made up of proletarians.

For my party, I would contend that not only can "majority worker" political parties be bourgeois, but that they must be so. The party structure is again capitalist in origin and accordingly capitalist in function. It doesn&#39;t matter what percentaqe of it&#39;s membership are technically workers, it will nonetheless always be fundamentally antithetical to proletarian organization.

Remember, fascist groups can be made up of workers too, that doesn&#39;t make them any less petty-bourgeois as organizations nor does it make them any less of a threat to the working class at large.

The American democratic party is almost entirely made of workers at its base, nonetheless because it is a bourgeois political party, its membership is wholly irrelevent.

The nature of political parties is that the leadership very rarely reflects the party at large. Ideologues and bureacrats are the only ones who have the dedication and energy to rise to the top. The rest barely have time to attend meetings.

At its hight, the CPSU counted something like 10% of the Soviet population among its members, around half of those were industrial workers. Despite the official tally, however, no one but the most die hard "revisionist" would claim that those 9 odd million workers had any say whatsover over state policy.

Stalin and Khruschev and Gorbachev did not differ to the "will" of the proletariat, they "judged" what was in the "popular interest" and acted accordingly. And they did so because that&#39;s what Lenin had done before them.

As I&#39;ve repeated several times, power perpetuates itself and once it&#39;s established it does not dissapate without a fight. Lenin and his successors may have meant well, but because they operated within a centralized and anti-democratic power structure, they could not help but be oppressive.


and it&#39;s leadership early on was declassed intelectuals and workers

Firstly, there is no such things as a "declassed intelectual". This is just yet another pathetic attempt to "proletarianize" the petty-bourgeois leadership of the Bolsehvik faction.

Sorry, but like it or not, Trotsky and Lenin and all the rest do not meet any Marxist definition of worker. They may have been excellent theoreticians and truly dedicated communists, but they had no place "leading" a proletarian organization.

Secondly, once a person holds a position of leadership in a hierarchical state structure, they cease to be workers. Class is not some immutable characteristic like race or religion, it is defined entirely by ones existant relationship to the means of production.

Even if someone used to be a worker, once they enter "leadership" and gain power over economic production, their class position nescessarily adjusts.

The political party and the "representative" state are bourgeois institutions used to perpetuate bourgeois dominance. By accepting a position of authority in either, one becomes a tool of the capitalists and/or a de facto capitalist oneself.


Where I&#39;d differ with you is in stating that this was a matter of "luck". The Bolsheviks were the party of choice for the Russian proletariat, amongst whom their popularity cannot be doubted, precisely because of the measures (read: democratic socialism) taken to immunise the Party from liberal radicals.

The Bolsheviks were the "party of choice" because they were the ones in charge. Prior to the October coup, most workers could not have been called Bolsheviks.

Once Lenin et al., siezed power, however, and demonstrated the political will to resist the reactionaries and establish a "proletarian" government, the radicalized working class was willing to support them.

The Bolshevik&#39;s resistance to liberal and bourgeois influences is certainly commendable and, again, is an indication of Lenin&#39;s political and theoretical intelligence.

I&#39;ve never denied that the Bolsheviks had good leadership, indeed I&#39;ve mentioned it quite a few times. That doesn&#39;t change the fact that luck played a significant role in their ultimate success.

Indeed, even the fact of their good leadership is largely due to luck. The system of "democratic" centralism certainly doesn&#39;t lend itself to effective management. As demonstrated by the near univeral failure of all subsequent Leninist parties, the Bolsheviks were well run in spite of their organizational scheme, not because of it.


And organisation, by its nature, requires centralisation.

Party organization requires centralization, yes, which is why political parties have no place within revolutionary class war.


Its that easy? Let&#39;s give it a try - I really, really want communism…

Hmmm that didn’t work too well. I wonder why… Oh yes, its that little matter of reality getting in the way.

Except the Bolsheviks weren&#39;t democratic before the Civil War and they weren&#39;t democratic afterwards.

Ad hoc executive bodies established to address immediate crises are one thing, but the hiearchical centralization of the Bolshevik party was anything but ad hoc.

Lenin proposed his system of "democratic" centralism as far back as 1903 and from then until the infamous party conference 1921 he never took a single step towards democratization or liberalization.

It was the Russian workers who fought the whites, not the "Bolsheviks", and they would have fought for the revolution whether or not they were allowed to self-organize.

Again, the civil war was a challenge yes, but there&#39;s no point in "defending" socialism if its not actually socialist. We cannot defeat the bourgeoisie by becoming them&#33;

[nickdlc]

The thing is though, the Bolsheviks had something that no future party ever would: Lenin. The fact is Lenin was a genius. In terms of management, in terms of politics, in terms of social understanding, in terms of pure political intuition, he is unrivaled by any communist leader before or since. I think your giving the man too much credit. He and his fellow bolsheviks rode on the wave of the proletarian uprising, infact trotsky admitted that the party was always lagging behind workers.

How did they ride on the wave of proletarian revolution? It&#39;s easy before bolsheviks had gained dominance in unions or soviets they would use socialist phrases and talk about how workers had to control the economy but once in power their line totally changed. Now workers control over production was seen a premature or "petty bourgeosie anarchism."


But now...why don&#39;t you accept the fact that other parties can have their own "Lenin"? Who cares? you cannot substitute one man or a political party for the working class. The revolution is not a party affair&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:52 AM
[ I&#39;m not one to harp on the specific details of the Russian Revolution, but I think that it&#39;s important to remember that the Bolsheviks were rather uniquely authoritarian in their management.
.....
f the Bolsheviks had been run democratically, there can really be no doubt that Lenin would have been in charge anyway and that his line would have dominated.


It was run democratically, and Lenin&#39;s line did win after debate and vote. Most of the time.

Sometimes he was outvoted - including on major issues. Like the timing and strategy of the October insurrection. Or whether to sign the Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany.

In April 1917, he had to take on much of the party leadership over this teensy little issue of whether to support or oppose the Provisional Government&#33; He appealed to the working-class ranks of the party and won out.

So you&#39;re simply committing historical falsification and total BS here. Even Redstar would admit the Bolshevik party - in Lenin&#39;s time - was run very differently than the "Leninist parties" he was always denouncing.



(Severian)
No, they&#39;re a Stalinist party, like I said. The Bolshevik Party certainly didn&#39;t operate on that principle, if you know anything about its history.
(Redstar) Oh, I&#39;ve picked up a few bits and pieces here and there. You are quite right; the Bolshevik Party in its "glory years" (1901-1921?) was considerably more democratic than its modern epigones. In those days, Lenin actually had to persuade his party that he was right...and he was not always successful.post link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=18112&hl="people+resent+being+treated"&view=findpost&p=280904)

But then, on this one subject Redstar had read about those "specific details" you can&#39;t be bothered with. (And on most subjects, he couldn&#39;t be bothered with &#39;em either. But the truth is always concrete, and conclusions must be based on facts....so Redstar was pretty consistently dead wrong.)

So I always raised the question: why are you calling those "Leninist parties" if they&#39;re unlike Lenin&#39;s party? Never got a good answer to that one.

Maybe other terms would be more descriptive, like...gasp....Stalinist parties? Left sects?


The thing is though, the Bolsheviks had something that no future party ever would: Lenin. The fact is Lenin was a genius. In terms of management, in terms of politics, in terms of social understanding, in terms of pure political intuition, he is unrivaled by any communist leader before or since.

Heh. The great man theory of history&#33; Good thing you don&#39;t claim to be a Marxist. Pretty sure even Redstar would flay you on this point, too.

Lenin was a product of his time, he grew along with the party he led. If he was an "unrivaled" genius, it&#39;s because he was part of a revolutionary party of unparalled political capability. A mass party of revolutionary workers, which is a rare thing in the 20th century and so far the 21st - unfortunately.

Lenin personally was in fact sometimes wrong, including about this teensy little thing we call the October insurrection. I mentioned he was outvoted in the Central Committee - on when to act, whether to call it in the name of the Petrograd Soviet or the Bolshevik Party, what forces to use....

Well, in retrospect, knowing how smoothly the insurrection went off, pretty clearly that was a good thing. So you gotta turn things upside down to say it was Lenin&#39;s unrivalled genius, not the party, which led to the October victory.

And of course there have been a few other anticapitalist revolutions since then. Have any of them been led by decentralized organizations? Sorry, no. Well, none which took power away from the capitalists.

There was a lot of variation in the quality of their leaders - the Chinese Revolution occurred in many ways despite Mao and the CCP leadership. A lot of variation in the degree pf democracy in those parties, their program and class character.

Not so much in the degree of centralization.


IThe fact that they happened to be run "democratically centralist" is just an accident of history, and one that has been repeated far too often.

Are accidents repeated? Others have tried without the centralism, and gotten nowhere. Hello, Spain? Heck, February Revolution, Russia?

And democratic centralism is the only kind of meaningful democracy. When the Bolshevik Party Congress voted to do something, it was done. That&#39;s what the centralism in democratic centralism means.

When a social-democratic party Congress votes for something? It&#39;s a decentralized party, so the decisions bind nobody. The leaders do whatever they damn well please. From time to time the ranks develop a radical mood and vote through some halfway decent decisions...it never means much.

Which is more democratic?

[LSD]

Severian, I&#39;ve already addressed most of these points. It might have been beneficial if you had read over the last few posts as your "comrades in arms" have already raised most if not all of your "refutations".


It was run democratically, and Lenin&#39;s line did win after debate and vote. Most of the time.

And who exactly "voted"? In how many of those "debates", did the rank-and-file membership participate?

You&#39;re right, the early Bolshevik party was slightly more expansive than one-man rule, it would probably be better characterized as a political oligarchy. That means that, while ususally Lenin managed to force his ideas, sometimes his buddies got together and outmaneuvered him.

That&#39;s not democracy, though, it&#39;s bourgeois party politics.

Again, a political party is designed to promote an ideology, the most "effective" means of doing this is to centralize and restrict power tp those who are most expert in and most dedicated to the said ideology.

Such centralization may be good at maintaining ideological "purity", but it is also fundamentally antithetical to democracy. A "workers&#39; state", however, or any other form of "socialist" government cannot be organized on such hierarchical lines or else management will stutilfy and the population at lage will become resistant to the government and eventually to socialism itself.

The bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation, accordingly, all of their various political institutions are organized on hierarchical and anti-democratic lines. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.

Revolutionary organizations cannot "direct" the war, they must be directed by the war. Only then does it truly "organically develop" from working class revolutionary interests.


Even Redstar would admit...

And I care ...why?


Heh. The great man theory of history&#33; Good thing you don&#39;t claim to be a Marxist. Pretty sure even Redstar would flay you on this point, too.

Wow, you really are obsessed with Redstar aren&#39;t you? :unsure:

You devoted something like half of your post to quoting and responding to a statement that was never posted in this thread by a member who hasn&#39;t been online in weeks.

I guess you just miss your old "nemesis" which is kind of cute I suppose; but reposting his old posts just so that you can "refute" them again is verging on the incredibly creepy.

I would suggest finding a new hobby. Preferably one that doesn&#39;t involve stalking old men.


Lenin was a product of his time

Obviously. That doesn&#39;t mean that he didn&#39;t have particular skills.

To deny that Lenin had a role in shaping the Bolshevik party is to deny that Hitler had a role in shaping the Nazis.

Obviously "great men" do not make history alone, but when they come into positions of great authority, they can often move it in directions that it would not otherwise move.

Was Lenin&#39;s "genius" so spectacular that alone he could have accomplished what the Bolsheviks ultimately did? Of course not, and that&#39;s not what I&#39;m claiming.

What I&#39;m contending, rather, is that because Lenin was personally an adept and skilled politician, the anti-democratic orgnizational scheme of the Bolshevik party was not as much of a disadvantage as it otherwise would have been.

That is, if instead of Lenin leading the party in 1915, it had been, say, Stalin, I highly doubt that we&#39;d be talking about them right now. Political leadership, after all, is about more than mere personality, it&#39;s also about who one surrounds oneself with.


Lenin personally was in fact sometimes wrong

Well, of course. I&#39;ve never proposed that he was "divine", merely that he was a very good theoretician and politician and that those personal skills somewhat mitigated the lack of democracy in the Bolsheviks&#39; leadership structure.

That doesn&#39;t mean that luck didn&#39;t also play a significant role in the Bolsheviks&#39; successes; especially with regards to the events of October. In some ways, Kerensky was just as responsible for the rise of the Bolsheviks as Lenin was.

Ultimately, the Bolsheviks were in the right place at the right time and made some very good decisions early on. And so when Lenin launched the coup of October 1917, most workers were willing to give them a shot. Although they would soon see what a tragic mistake this would be, at the time they were unwilling to foster another civil war and hoped that the Bolsheviks could protect the gains of the revolution.

If another group had had the instincts and political will to sieze power, the Bolsheviks would be half a chapter in the history of Revolutionary Russia. Giving the "credit" for the radicalization of the Russian working class to a handful of Petrograd activists is to ignore the historical forces that Marxism is predicated on studying.

The workers were going to use someone to push their revolutionary interests, the tragedy of the USSR is that happened to chose the wrong party. Lenin&#39;s skills are important because they positioned the Bolsheviks perfectly to take advantage of the rising revolutionary fervor.

If he hadn&#39;t done that, it would have been someone else. Lenin didn&#39;t "make" the revolution, but he did make it a Leninist one.


And of course there have been a few other anticapitalist revolutions since then. Have any of them been led by decentralized organizations?

A couple, Spain obviously comes to mind.

But you&#39;re right, most "Marxist" or "communist" revolutions of the twentieth century were authoritarian in nature. But do you reall believe that that has nothing to do with October 1917?

What exactly is it that you&#39;re proposing, that it&#39;s a "law of nature" that anti-capitalist revolts "must" be lead by "iron" leaders?

Isn&#39;it it more likely that, seeing the apparently spectacular success of the Bolsheviks, revolutionary parties around the world tried to mimic, to the best of their abilities, the distinct characteristics that apparently lead the Bolsheviks to power?

It&#39;s only in recent years that the mainstream leftist movement is finally starting to turn away from the "lessons of october". I suppose the collapse of the Soviet Union helped with that, but it&#39;s unfortunate that the old beast had to complete implode before people realized what a monstrosity it was.


Are accidents repeated?

Of course they are, especially when those accidents appear to be "effective".

If Lenin had failed to achieve power in 1917, his ideas of "democratic centralism" almost certainly would have died with him. Instead, they came to dominate modern Marxist thought.

And once the Soviet Union became a global superpower, it used it&#39;s muscle to ensure that only the "centralized" parties got support. As a leftist one either closed ones eyes to reality and internalized the Leninist line or one accepted the bleak reality that mainstream Marxism had been entirely perverted.

For most, it was much easier to choose the former.


Others have tried without the centralism, and gotten nowhere.

And those who have tried with centralism have gotten where exactly? The USSR? The PRC? The DPRK?

No fucking thanks&#33; :angry:


And democratic centralism is the only kind of meaningful democracy.

And the United States Congress "faithfully represents" the will of the "American people. :rolleyes:

Really, Severian, don&#39;t you see the funamental flaw in trying to base proletarian organizations on bourgeois models?

Because the organiztion itself has no natural basis in proletarian life, meetings are nearly impossible and the role of the "leadership" becomes that much more important. Constant threat of "discovery" or "inflitration" makes participatory decision-making more and more subject to the "leading voice" and very soon we have virtual if not de juire one-man rule.

If, instead, proletarian resistance is made up of proletarian associations, real workers cannot help but be involved. No "central committee" will be "forced" to take the reigns and political action will flow from natural class war instead of from some artificial faux-"proletarian" petty-bourgeois "party"


When the Bolshevik Party Congress voted to do something, it was done. That&#39;s what the centralism in democratic centralism means.

When a social-democratic party Congress votes for something? It&#39;s a decentralized party, so the decisions bind nobody.

I&#39;ve never denied that "democratic" centralism is centralized, I&#39;ve just denied that it&#39;s "democratic".

Besides, democracy isn&#39;t about "party Congresses", it&#39;s about participatory management. The reason that your hypothetical "social democratic party Congress" fails to get anything done is because "party Congresses" do not represent the will of the majority, they represent the will of the political elite.

The nature of political parties is that the leadership very rarely reflects the party at large. Ideologues and bureacrats are the only ones who have the dedication and energy to rise to the top. The rest barely have time to attend meetings.

At its hight, the CPSU counted something like 10% of the Soviet population among its members, around half of those were industrial workers. Despite the official tally, however, no one but the most die hard "revisionist" would claim that those 9 odd million workers had any say whatsover over state policy.

Stalin and Khruschev and Gorbachev did not differ to the "will" of the proletariat, they "judged" what was in the "popular interest" and acted accordingly. And they did so because that&#39;s what Lenin had done before them.

As I&#39;ve repeated several times, power perpetuates itseld and once it&#39;s established it does not dissapate without a fight. Lenin and his successors may have meant well, but because they operated within a centralized and anti-democratic power structure, they could not help but be oppressive.

Democracy cannot be "perverted" by evil men. Stalin&#39;s rise to power can only be explained by recognizing the fundamentally anti-democratic system within which he operated.

I understand that it&#39;s tempting to believe that the Russian Revolution really was the great proletarian success we all wish it was. But to do so is to ignore the realities of history.

It&#39;s time to let dead Russians stay dead and move on with the business of liberating the workers. The time for "leading" them is over&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:19 PM
Severian, I&#39;ve already addressed most of these points.
No, actually, you just keep repeating that Lenin was a despot as if repetition was proof.


You&#39;re right, the early Bolshevik party was slightly more expansive than one-man rule, it would probably be better characterized as a political oligarchy. That means that, while ususally Lenin managed to force his ideas, sometimes his buddies got together and outmaneuvered him.

So you admit your original post was bullshit, then. You know, the one where you said the success of the Bolsheviks was due to the unique genius of their supreme individual leader.

My work here is done.

[LSD]

No, actually, you just keep repeating that Lenin was a despot as if repetition was proof.

Lenin was a despot, fundamentally, because political parties are intrinsically despotic, and even more so in the case of parties like the Bolsheviks which glorify principles of "centralism" and "leadership".

It&#39;s not that Lenin was a "bad guy", it&#39;s just that political parties are not propper vehicles for working class revolution.

I&#39;ve tried to explain this point several times now, but you don&#39;t seem interested in reading any posts but your own. Allow me to quote myself then:

Originally posted by me+--> (me)A political party is designed to promote an ideology, the most "effective" means of doing this is to centralize and restrict power tp those who are most expert in and most dedicated to the said ideology.

Such centralization may be good at maintaining ideological "purity", but it is also fundamentally antithetical to democracy. A "workers&#39; state", however, or any other form of "socialist" government cannot be organized on such hierarchical lines or else management will stutilfy and the population at lage will become resistant to the government and eventually to socialism itself.

The bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation, accordingly, all of their various political institutions are organized on hierarchical and anti-democratic lines. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.

Revolutionary organizations cannot "direct" the war, they must be directed by the war. Only then does it truly "organically develop" from working class revolutionary interests.[/b]



So you admit your original post was bullshit, then. You know, the one where you said the success of the Bolsheviks was due to the unique genius of their supreme individual leader.

Except I never said that.

What I said was that the accident of Lenin&#39;s genius mitigated the Bolsheviks&#39; anti-democratic organizational structure:


me
Unfortunately, I think that many people learned the wrong lesson from the October Revolution. Far too many communist parties starting thinking that in order to gain power, one must be "as disciplined" as the Bolsheviks.

The thing is though, the Bolsheviks had something that no future party ever would: Lenin. The fact is Lenin was a genius. In terms of management, in terms of politics, in terms of social understanding, in terms of pure political intuition, he is unrivaled by any communist leader before or since.

With this kind of phenomenal leadership, the Bolsheviks could afford to let their leadership make all the rules. It wasn&#39;t "how they were running things" that let them outsmart their oponents, it was who was running things.

Because Lenin&#39;s line was generally a good one, the fact that he was not democratically accountable wasn&#39;t as much of a tactical disadvantage as it might otherwise have been.

Lenin&#39;s genius explains how the Bolsheviks were as successful as they were despite their horrific choice of organizational schemes. It is not the sole reason for their succes. As I said earlier, if they had been democratic, most of Lenin&#39;s ideas (save those on party management obviously) would have been adopted.

"Democratic centralism" can only hurt. Good theories simply don&#39;t need it to survive. Bad ones, however, thrive on it. And once Stalin took possession of that Lenin&#39;s hierarchical party machine, that fact became all too obvious

[Vanguard1917]

LSD:

political parties are intrinsically despotic

You say that the &#39;party&#39; is a bad idea because political parties are &#39;bourgeois inventions&#39;.

Political parties, in their modern forms, are indeed products of the modern, bourgeois epoch. But then the proletariat is also a product of the bourgeois epoch and class struggle between workers and capitalists is a product of the bourgeois epoch. Modern military technology is an invention of the bourgeois epoch, propaganda placards are inventions of the bourgeois epoch, and, strictly speaking, socialist ideology is a bourgeois invention.

None of this means, however, that the working class shouldn&#39;t and doesn&#39;t use these &#39;bourgeois inventions&#39; in its own interests.


Lenin&#39;s genius explains how the Bolsheviks were as successful as they were

On the contrary, it was the communist movement in Russia - the greatest product of which was the Bolshevik tradition - that produced &#39;Lenin&#39;s genius&#39;.

And your argument is quite confusing. Are you saying that the Bolsheviks were right in their decisions, but the problem is that they did not reach those decisions democratically?

If that&#39;s the case then you have a very bizarre notion of the purpose of democracy in the movement - as though it is some kind of formality put in place in order to legitimate particular decisions, rather than a means through which the right decisions are made.

[LSD]

Political parties, in their modern forms, are indeed products of the modern, bourgeois epoch. But then the proletariat is also a product of the bourgeois epoch and class struggle between workers and capitalists is a product of the bourgeois epoch.

I think you&#39;re missing my point.

I don&#39;t object to the political party because it&#39;s a "part of the bourgeois epoc", I object to it because it is intrinsically bourgeois.

All the things you&#39;re talking about, computers, military techniques, etc... they were invented under the bourgeoisie, but they were not designed to serve bourgeois political needs.

The political party, however, specifically evolved out of capitalist political tendencies.

The bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation, accordingly, all of their various political institutions are organized on hierarchical and anti-democratic lines. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.


None of this means, however, that the working class shouldn&#39;t and doesn&#39;t use these &#39;bourgeois inventions&#39; in its own interests.

The working class should use every and all tools that are objectively useful to it. The political party is not one such tool.

Parties, by their nature, centralize authority into the hands of the most "theoretically advanced". This is beneficial when the objective is to promote some ideological line. But working class revolution is not about ideology, it&#39;s about liberation.

The revolutionary process needs to be an emancipatory one. Workers need to learn to manage themselves and their work without "supervision" from anyone. Party-based action does not promote this.

On the contrary, while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

Now, for bourgeois parties this isn&#39;t a problem. Their fundamental purpose is to promote some political line. An inactive membership is irrelevent so long as the party stays ideologically on message.

When a bourgeois party takes power it aims to make changes, surely, but those changes are top-down in nature. Training average workers to be self-empowered is the last thing the bourgeoisie wants.

Political parties work for bourgeois changes to the bourgeois system. They do not work as an insurrectionary tool against the system itself. The proletariat []cannot[/b] look to the "capitalist example" when attacking the foundations of capitalism itself.

A proletarian revolution is the only kind of revolution in history that seeks to enfranchise the masses. Accordingly, no historical revolutionary "models" can possibly apply.


On the contrary, it was the communist movement in Russia - the greatest product of which was the Bolshevik tradition - that produced &#39;Lenin&#39;s genius&#39;.

I&#39;m sure it derived from a number of influences, all of which are wholly irrelevent to this discussion.

It doesn&#39;t matter why Lenin was good at his job, all that matters is that he was. And because he was, the Bolshevik&#39;s deference to his authority was not the cataclysmic mistake it could have been.

That&#39;s the thing about despotism, when the despot is smart enough and well-meaning enough, it actually almost works.


And your argument is quite confusing. Are you saying that the Bolsheviks were right in their decisions, but the problem is that they did not reach those decisions democratically?

No. I&#39;m saying that the Bolsheviks made some very good tactical decisions in spite of their abysmal choice of organizational structure.

Normally, that kind of "centralism" would lead to political stultification (and, indeed, it eventually would), but nothing is "absolute" in this world and while anti-democratic organizing usually results in the perpetuation of bad ideas, if the "leadership" is skilled enough, the detriments of despotism can be significantly mitigated.

Not completely, of course, and the alienating nature of despotism can never be solved no matter how much a "genius" the leader might be. That&#39;s why, eventually, even "benevolent despotisms" must fall. In the case of the Soviet Union, it only took about 70 years.

During those 70 years, however, far too many revolutionaries took the wrong lesson from the Bolsheviks and began assuming that centralization actually leads to good tactics.

Obviously they were mistaken.

[Axel1917]

Blech&#33; You can read good material, which refutes all of the Stalinist, Anarchist, and bourgeois lies about Lenin and the October Revolution here:

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook-2.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Right on, Severian&#33; :hammer:

LSD, isn&#39;t there a significant difference between free votes and voting "per the Party line"? Yes, you mentioned absolute freedom of discussion, which is nice. However, Lenin&#39;s famous slogan (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm) is more properly interpreted as "freedom to criticize, right to vote freely, unity in action".

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:50 pm
Lenin was a despot, fundamentally, because political parties are intrinsically despotic, and even more so in the case of parties like the Bolsheviks which glorify principles of "centralism" and "leadership".

It&#39;s not that Lenin was a "bad guy", it&#39;s just that political parties are not propper vehicles for working class revolution.
That&#39;s a ridiculous point. Do you even know what democratic centralism is?

Political parties are necessary and beneficial. The coordination, unity, discipline and strength they bring is indispensible in building a revolutionary movement and in carrying out the revolution itself.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don&#39;t think that we should go as far as denouncing political parties as bourgeois organs, that is simply ultra-leftist and ahistorical poison that would be completely detrimental to the international proletariat movement.

Either way, is the model that worked in a backward, unindustrialized, mostly illiterate backwater not fully integrated into capitalism and stuck in a feudalistic police state that was only effective in revolutionary times applicable the United States today? What has been the history of democratic centralist organizations here in the US in non-revolutionary times? It has been a history of power-trips, personality masquerading as politics, cults, sects, banning of factions, and other shameful accusations. This sad history has derailed growth of working class organization and consciousness and turned people off of revolutionary politics. Especially since the rise of the internet and the facility of non-hierarchical networks, resistance has coalesced and grown better outside of Democratic Centralist organizations. Lenin&#39;s assessment that workers can not go farther than &#39;trade union consciousness&#39;, that he wrote about in What Is To Be Done was soon proven incorrect by the Moscow and Petrograd working class. In 1905 they created Soviets to administer the general strikes and pushed them towards dual power confrontations against the Tsarist state. Lenin recognized the Soviets for what they were, and had to argue against the other Bolsheviks who opposed Soviets because they weren&#39;t creations of the party. Who was the vanguard again? Was it these hierarchally-structured &#39;revolutionary&#39; parties, or the workers themselves, who developed consciousness without the hypnotizing trance provided &#39;from the outside&#39;; the socialist intellectuals that agitated amongst the workers.

I do not wish to discredit Lenin however, and actually reinforce the position that he never explicitly changed, in which he held that the conception of independently pursuing the task of gaining consciousness was something that could only be pursued through actions undertaken by the workers themselves.



Vladimir Lenin Lessons of the Revolution[i]:
At every step the workers come face to face with their main enemy — the capitalist class. In combat with this enemy the worker becomes a socialist, comes to realize the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the whole of society, the complete abolition of all poverty and oppression.


Vladimir Lenin [I]The Reorganization of the Party:
The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness.

I think that, in conclusion, Lenin recognized that the character of the working class was bent towards the independent construction of class consciouss without it&#39;s plastering &#39;from the outside&#39;, and that it&#39;s own experience in these struggles will assist in the fostering of militancy and inner-organization that they will gradually obtain as a result of a sharper inclination brought forth by reaccuring moments of capitalist crisis. Trotsky asserted that,


Leon Trotsky, Speech given to the CP of Ukraine in Kharkov, 1923:
“… in history’s last analysis the working class would’ve triumphed even if there had been no Marx and no Ulyanov-Lenin.

“The working class would’ve worked out the ideas it needed, the methods that were necessary to it, but more slowly. The circumstance that the working class raised up, at two crests of its historical development, two such figures as Marx and Lenin, has been of colossal advantage to the revolution”

This is where the divide between Stalinists and Leninists is reached; whereas proponents of Lenin and Trotsky call for the revolutionary party to be a guiding force, Stalin had proposed that it was the sole leading force; that the labor movement, when left to its own devices, was inclined irrevocably toward opportunism and that only through resigning to strict party discipline, could any results be expected. In my opinion, this is where the excesses of recent Maoists, and even hundreds of Trotskyist sects, floats fluently from.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 11:01 am

But now...why don&#39;t you accept the fact that other parties can have their own "Lenin"?

I do&#33; I&#39;m just equally aware that there&#39;s no way to tell in advance when a "leader" will be particularly good and,
Plus the mistification of the historical character of Lenin led to the ridiculous trend to identify "Lenins" wherever. There was a "Spanish Lenin", a "Hungarian Lenin", a "Polish Lenin", and so on. Evidently, the sheer fact that people believed in such garbage should point to the fact that those people where infinitely less capable leaders. Or, at least, "Marxist" leaders that never cared to even open their copy of the 18th Brummary...

In other words, "Leninism" is something that will prevent the possibility of "another Lenin".

Luís Henrique

[Herman]

"Spanish Lenin"

You mean that there was a guy in Spain who looked just like Lenin but instead of saying &#39;all power to the Soviets&#39;, he said &#39;Ole, ole&#39;?

[Soviet Britian]

could i just drop in this idea?

the bolsheviks were &#39;authoirtarian&#39; because they were intelletucals telling their party membership what to do- who were uneducated workers?
(this is a dynamic concept and changes with the level of development, it&#39;s not an inherent or permenant thing)