Leninism and Workers Movements

[RGacky3]

The basic bare concept of Socialism as I understand it is the liberation of the working class from Wage-slavery, that Capitalism is systematic theft and that a socialist revolution should replace it with a collective social minded system.

And the Idea of Leninism is that a vanguard party must be the ones to liberate the working class because the workers cannot do it themselves, and that a State lead by a Communist Party would move the nation into Socialism and eventually into Communism, now heres my qustion:

How would a Marxist-Leninist defend the Socialist States (such as the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam and so on), not allowing and persecuting labor movements, such as Unions, a democratic workplace, and so on. I find it kind of Ironic, that one of the 2 biggest threats to the Soviet Union when it was around was the revolution in Hungary, where Workers actually took direct control over the Factories, and the Solidarity movement, an independant Labor movement. It also suprises me that Unions are banned in Cuba.

Heres the contradiction I see, the eventual goal is workers controlling the economy directly and society, yet so called Socialist states are very much against tendancies toward it, prefering to as I see it, keep power within the Vanguard. Is there a defence of this?

[VukBZ2005]

The basic bare concept of Socialism as I understand it is the liberation of the working class from Wage-slavery, that Capitalism is systematic theft and that a socialist revolution should replace it with a collective social minded system.

Socialism, if you really want to understand it, is the transition period between Capitalism and Communism.

It is meant to prepare society for real Communist overproduction and superabundance.

It is not this separate stage of revolutionary development and thus, should not be treated as so.


And the Idea of Leninism is that a vanguard party must be the ones to liberate the working class because the workers cannot do it themselves, and that a State lead by a Communist Party would move the nation into Socialism and eventually into Communism

Which has been proven wrong over and over by the fact that Leninism, in one form or another, eventually led to the development of Capitalism in the countries where it was a dominant force.

Therefore, one needs to return to the concept that only the autonomous self-action of the working class will lead to the end of Capitalism by the working class.

To say that the workers can not do this themselves is to say that you are not really the revolutionary that you proclaim yourself to be.

You are just a reactionary if that is the case.


I find it kind of Ironic, that one of the 2 biggest threats to the Soviet Union when it was around was the revolution in Hungary, where Workers actually took direct control over the Factories, and the Solidarity movement, an independant Labor movement.

How can it be irony?

If the "Socialist" state continued to restrict control over the means of production from the workers, when the "Socialist" state claimed to be a "Worker's State", then is it not the right of the workers in that "Socialist" state to actually take control over the means of production?

After all, they are in the "process of becoming truly Communist", right?

It is more proof that the "U.S.S.R" and its client states was and are really a form of Capitalism.


Heres the contradiction I see, the eventual goal is workers controlling the economy directly and society, yet so called Socialist states are very much against tendancies toward it, prefering to as I see it, keep power within the Vanguard. Is there a defence of this?

No.

To defend this contradiction is to defend the continuation of Capitalist society in an other form.

[BobKKKindle$]

Leninist States are best described as 'State Capitalist' because the means of production were concentrated in the hands of the state, and controlled by a class of economic planners and part administrators, and not by the workers. Under Socialism factories and other workplaces would be managed according to the principle of worker's self management, wherbey workers have ownership of the means of production and ownership of the commodities that they produce, and decisions are undertaken through a democratic assembly consisting of all the workers.

Examples of where Socialist Economic Management include:

Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html
Yugoslavia following WW2:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/tito/1950/06/26.htm
The Argentinian occupied factory movement.

The idea that the proletariat itself can be the only group that can emancipate the proletariat and that workplaces should be managed by their workplaces is associated with Autonomist Marxism.

Trotsky belived that the failure of the USSR was not a result of an inherent flaw within the theory of the vanguard party, but rather arose from the fact that the revolution remained confined to Russia, which consequently lead to the formation of bureaucratic structures and a 'deformed workers state'.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:01 am
The basic bare concept of Socialism as I understand it is the liberation of the working class from Wage-slavery, that Capitalism is systematic theft and that a socialist revolution should replace it with a collective social minded system.

And the Idea of Leninism is that a vanguard party must be the ones to liberate the working class because the workers cannot do it themselves, and that a State lead by a Communist Party would move the nation into Socialism and eventually into Communism, now heres my qustion:

How would a Marxist-Leninist defend the Socialist States (such as the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam and so on), not allowing and persecuting labor movements, such as Unions, a democratic workplace, and so on. I find it kind of Ironic, that one of the 2 biggest threats to the Soviet Union when it was around was the revolution in Hungary, where Workers actually took direct control over the Factories, and the Solidarity movement, an independant Labor movement. It also suprises me that Unions are banned in Cuba.

Heres the contradiction I see, the eventual goal is workers controlling the economy directly and society, yet so called Socialist states are very much against tendancies toward it, prefering to as I see it, keep power within the Vanguard. Is there a defence of this?
First of all socialism isn't just the liberation of wage-labour. Socialism is the liberation of economic, cultural and political opression by the bourgeoisie. This liberation is only possible due to the socialization of the means of production.

Second, according to Lenin it is NOT the vanguard party that liberates the working class, it is the working class that has to liberate itself. However, Lenin does reckon that nobody is born a marxist, you have to learn is in order to understand. The party is not only an institution to learn for the workers about the class-struggle but also to fight for the class stuggle.

Third, no unions in Cuba? I don't understand. Do you actually know something about Cuba? The CTC is the official workers union and there are 19 other unions! These unions have a tremendous power because they organize on the state controlled industries on social and economic level.

[RGacky3]

I mean independant Unions, without state control.


Socialism, if you really want to understand it, is the transition period between Capitalism and Communism.

That is generally only believed by Marxists, there are many other types of Socialists. Socialism is much broader than Marxism.


Second, according to Lenin it is NOT the vanguard party that liberates the working class, it is the working class that has to liberate itself. However, Lenin does reckon that nobody is born a marxist, you have to learn is in order to understand. The party is not only an institution to learn for the workers about the class-struggle but also to fight for the class stuggle.

But in the USSR, the revolution was done by the bolshevics, and other parties were eliminated, and the industry was taken over my them as well? If the party is only supposed to 'help' the workers, but in essence does it by taking over everything, how is that justified?

I've heard the term State Capitalism before, and to me it sounds just like a Buzzword, Capitalism means much more than just owners and workers, it means markets, free trade, competition, eutreprenourity and so on, so Opression and Exploitation? Yes, Wage slavery? Yes, Capitalism? I don't think so.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:01 am
The basic bare concept of Socialism as I understand it is the liberation of the working class from Wage-slavery, that Capitalism is systematic theft and that a socialist revolution should replace it with a collective social minded system.

And the Idea of Leninism is that a vanguard party must be the ones to liberate the working class because the workers cannot do it themselves, and that a State lead by a Communist Party would move the nation into Socialism and eventually into Communism, now heres my qustion:

How would a Marxist-Leninist defend the Socialist States (such as the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam and so on), not allowing and persecuting labor movements, such as Unions, a democratic workplace, and so on. I find it kind of Ironic, that one of the 2 biggest threats to the Soviet Union when it was around was the revolution in Hungary, where Workers actually took direct control over the Factories, and the Solidarity movement, an independant Labor movement. It also suprises me that Unions are banned in Cuba.

Heres the contradiction I see, the eventual goal is workers controlling the economy directly and society, yet so called Socialist states are very much against tendancies toward it, prefering to as I see it, keep power within the Vanguard. Is there a defence of this?
I would like to point to a few posts where I answered about this already (repeating yourself isn't that usefull afterall): Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60490&view=findpost&p=1292233664), here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60490&view=findpost&p=1292233682) and here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60490&view=findpost&p=1292233740).
About bobkindles' post: I already answered why "state capitalism" is a silly theory (read the third link) and would like to see an answer to that.

[Vargha Poralli]

That is generally only believed by Marxists, there are many other types of Socialists. Socialism is much broader than Marxism.

Marxism is more practical way for achieving socialism.


But in the USSR, the revolution was done by the bolshevics,

With the Popular support from Peasants and almost unanimous support from workers and soldiers(who were initially sent to crush activities of the former).


and other parties were eliminated,

Only after they took up arms against the Bolsheviks.


and the industry was taken over my them as well?

As a temporary measure to fight a Civil war


If the party is only supposed to 'help' the workers, but in essence does it by taking over everything, how is that justified?

The Party "helped" the workers by protecting and saving them from reactionary whites and 14 imperialist armies and the last notable imperialist Churchill called openly to strangle the young workers state in its infancy. It is justfied by that fact.

And history strongly favours the Bolsheviks by a simple fact that the workers and soldiers who specifically refused fight for the Tsar in the Imperialist world war fought for Bolsheviks ferociously.And this change happened within 8 months of February revolution which reflected the masses and soldiers HATRED FOR THE WAR.

[Morpheus]

The usual defense of Leninist anti-union policy is that since the workers control the state they have no real need for unions or strikes. Who are they going to go on strike against? Themselves? Workers who go on strike, or form an independant union, are essentially attempting to advance their own welfare at the expense of the rest of the working class. Since the workers state looks out for the interests of all workers, not just a subset of it, state control of unions insures they don't wreck worker solidarity by advocating for only one section of workers. This, of course, is premised on the flawed assumption that states can actually be controlled by workers and that the USSR, etc. achieved this working class control.

The essence of capitalism is wage-labor. The daily life of the average person in the USSR and USA with regard to economics have much more in common with each other than they do with a feudal or slave society. Free markets, competition, etc. are not required for capitalism. If they were, everytime a company established a monopoly it would end capitalism. That's clearly not true, unless someone thinks Microsoft is a socialist organization? Marxist states are simply the ultimately in capitalist monopolies: a single monopoly controls everything, even the state.

In the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks crushed many rival parties & movements before they took up arms. Anarchists were attacked in April 1918, before they began engaging in armed struggle. Mensheviks never got around to taking up arms against the Bolsheviks, yet they were persecuted and suppressed.


history strongly favours the Bolsheviks by a simple fact that the workers and soldiers who specifically refused fight for the Tsar in the Imperialist world war fought for Bolsheviks ferociously.

That's why the bolsheviks had to institute a draft. :rolleyes:

[More Fire for the People]

The basic bare concept of Socialism as I understand it is the liberation of the working class from Wage-slavery, that Capitalism is systematic theft and that a socialist revolution should replace it with a collective social minded system.
Communism is more than a liberation of the working class from wage-slavery, it is a revolutionary project for human emancipation. It the end of the conflict between man and man and man and nature.


And the Idea of Leninism is that a vanguard party must be the ones to liberate the working class because the workers cannot do it themselves, and that a State lead by a Communist Party would move the nation into Socialism and eventually into Communism...
Yes, which is a bit confusing. Lenin wanted the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' without the whole dictatorship of the proletariat part.


How would a Marxist-Leninist defend the Socialist States (such as the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam and so on), not allowing and persecuting labor movements, such as Unions, a democratic workplace, and so on. I find it kind of Ironic, that one of the 2 biggest threats to the Soviet Union when it was around was the revolution in Hungary, where Workers actually took direct control over the Factories, and the Solidarity movement, an independant Labor movement. It also suprises me that Unions are banned in Cuba.
Exactly. Leninism is failed Jacobin socialism. Out of every socialist project of the 20th century only Cuba shows any hope.


Heres the contradiction I see, the eventual goal is workers controlling the economy directly and society, yet so called Socialist states are very much against tendancies toward it, prefering to as I see it, keep power within the Vanguard. Is there a defence of this?
No. Bolshevikism is dead. It is necessary for modern revolutionaries to draw upon the collective experiences of the working class and create a revolutionary model from that.

[Q]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 01, 2007 09:33 pm
No. Bolshevikism is dead. It is necessary for modern revolutionaries to draw upon the collective experiences of the working class and create a revolutionary model from that.
What do you propose?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Q-collective+January 01, 2007 05:08 pm--> (Q-collective @ January 01, 2007 05:08 pm)
Hopscotch [email protected] 01, 2007 09:33 pm
No. Bolshevikism is dead. It is necessary for modern revolutionaries to draw upon the collective experiences of the working class and create a revolutionary model from that.
What do you propose? [/b]
I cannot give out a detailed programme but I would say something along the lines of creating a federation of workers’ councils and communes. Of course, this is all not that different from the ideas put forth in the State & Revolution the main failure of Leninism is its view of revolution. I suppose Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek, & Paul Mattick have outlined the most important points already and there is no need for me to do so.

[Vargha Poralli]

The usual defense of Leninist anti-union policy is that since the workers control the state they have no real need for unions or strikes. Who are they going to go on strike against? Themselves? Workers who go on strike, or form an independant union, are essentially attempting to advance their own welfare at the expense of the rest of the working class. Since the workers state looks out for the interests of all workers, not just a subset of it, state control of unions insures they don't wreck worker solidarity by advocating for only one section of workers. This, of course, is premised on the flawed assumption that states can actually be controlled by workers and that the USSR, etc. achieved this working class control.


Exactly opposite Lenin was strongly for Unions to be Independent from the state. It was Trotsky who was against it.And before Lenin lenin got his way both men had a biggest debate between themselves(which had gone totally out of control) in 10th congress to convince CC.


(wikipedia)
In late 1920, after the Bolshevik victory in the Civil War and in the period leading up to the Eighth and Ninth Congress of Soviets, the Communist Party found itself engaged in a heated and increasingly acrimonious discussion over the role of trade unions in the Soviet state. The discussion split the Party into numerous factions, with Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin each having their "platforms" (factions), Bukharin eventually merging his faction with Trotsky's. Smaller, more radical factions like the Workers' Opposition (headed by Alexander Shlyapnikov) and the Group of Democratic Centralism were particularly active.

Trotsky's position in this crucial debate was formed while he was heading a special commission on the Soviet transportation system, Tsektran. His appointment as head of this committee was made in order to rebuild a railroad system that lay in ruins after the Civil War. Being the Commisar of War and a revolutionary military leader, he felt there was a need to create a militarized "production atmosphere" by incorporating the trade unions directly into the State apparatus. His unyielding stance that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and that the State should have full control over the trade unions lead him to argue in the Ninth Party Congress for, "such a regime under which each worker feels himself to be a soldier of labor who cannot freely dispose of himself; if he is ordered transferred, he must execute that order; if he does not do so, he will be a deserter who should be punished. Who will execute this? The trade union. It will create a new regime. That is the militarization of the working class."

Lenin sharply critiqued Trotsky and accused him of "bureaucratically nagging the trade unions" and of staging "factional attacks." His view did not focus on State control as much as the concern that a new relationship was needed between the State and the rank-and-file workers. He said, "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above." This was a debate that Lenin thought the Party could ill afford. His frustration with Trotsky was capitalized on by Stalin and Zinoviev, who used their support for Lenin's position to improve their standing within the Bolshevik leadership at Trotsky's expense.

Disagreements were threatening to get out of hand and many Bolsheviks, including Lenin, feared that the Party would splinter. The Central Committee was split almost evenly between Lenin's and Trotsky's supporters, with all three Secretaries of the Central Committee (Krestinky, Yevgeny Preobrazhensky and Leonid Serebryakov) supporting Trotsky.

At a meeting of his faction at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921, Lenin said:[25]

I have been accused: "You are a son of a ***** for letting the discussion get out of hand". Well, try to stop Trotsky. How many divisions does one have to send against him? [...]

We will come to terms with Trotsky. [...]

Trotsky wants to resign. Over the past three years I have had lots of resignations in my pockets. And I have let some of them just lie there in store. But Trotsky is a temperamental man with military experience. He is in love with the organization, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue.

At the Congress, Lenin's faction won a decisive victory and a number of Trotsky's supporters (including all three secretaries of the Central Committee) lost their leadership positions. Zinoviev, who had supported Lenin, became a full member of the Politburo while Krestinsky lost his Politburo seat. Krestinsky's place in the secretariat was taken by Vyacheslav Molotov. The Congress also adopted a secret resolution on "Party unity", which banned factions within the Party except during pre-Congress discussions. The resolution was later published and used by Stalin against Trotsky and other opponents.




In the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks crushed many rival parties & movements before they took up arms. Anarchists were attacked in April 1918, before they began engaging in armed struggle. Mensheviks never got around to taking up arms against the Bolsheviks, yet they were persecuted and suppressed.

Care to provide sources for your claim that political parties were banned before they took up arms? and mensheviks supported the whites and their pogroms thats why they are banned.


That's why the bolsheviks had to institute a draft. rolleyes.gif

Even then the conscripted soldiers fought for bolsheviks.They did not desert like they did under Czar.


No. Bolshevikism is dead. It is necessary for modern revolutionaries to draw upon the collective experiences of the working class and create a revolutionary model from that.

Bolshevism(or Leninism) is basically Marxism which is called so because of the tactics taken by Lenin and Bolsheviks to the Material conditions in Russia.Saying Bolshevism is dead is more like saying Marxism is Dead.

[More Fire for the People]

Bolshevism(or Leninism) is basically Marxism which is called so because of the tactics taken by Lenin and Bolsheviks to the Material conditions in Russia.Saying Bolshevism is dead is more like saying Marxism is Dead.
:rolleyes: Leninism was theoretical before it was put into practice. Lenin's biggest theoretical contributors were Kautsky and Plekhanov. Plekhanov believed in a Marxianised version of Russian populism and Kautsky was an outright revisionist. Kautsky invented the line of petty-bourgeois intellectuals leading, or even creating, a working class revolution. The tactics of Lenin and the Bolsheviks during the revolution were those of Jacobins dressed in red flags. This is evident in Kronstadt, the Cheka, Tambov, war communism, & state-capitalism [Lenin, Bukharin, & Preobrazhensky].

[Ol' Dirty]

I think that Leninism and Marxism-Leninism don't allow for enough popular autonomy. In fact, Leninist and Marxist-Leninist states tend to create a new stratified class society of their own.