[STUDY GROUP] What is to Be Done?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Whose up for a paragraph by paragraph analysis of the classic?

What is to be Done? Burning Questions of our movement online text (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm)

[Rawthentic]

I'm definitely up for it. Where shall we start?

[bezdomni]

I'm down.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I don't know. Let's wait for more people. I'd like to start from the begining or where he starts talking about spontaneity.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

mm'kay sounds fun

[The Grey Blur]

I've only read bits and pieces of this so I'm all for this.

[RedLenin]

I'm in. It's a controversial text, so this could be a good way to better understand it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

okay should we stick with the paragraph by paragraph analysis or chapter by chapter?

[Honggweilo]

up for it

[Rawthentic]

Paragraph by paragraph would be far more precise and detailed.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:03 am
Paragraph by paragraph would be far more precise and detailed.
I second this opinion. We first analyse paragraph by paragraph and then some one will summarise the key points in the chapter after analysis of each paragraph. Like this for all chapters.

[manic expression]

I would be up for joining.

[The Grey Blur]

Any anarchists willing to participate?

[dannthraxxx]

I'm Anarchist, I've never read this so I'd definitely like to join. And I vote the paragraph by paragraph analysis as well.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

okay paragraph by paragraph it is. Shall we start at the begining or study a specific part?

[Ander]

I think I would be up for this. I find it difficult to read things online though, I much prefer book form.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I'm intrigued, this could be interesting. Just don't expect to convert me to Leninism :D

[quirk]

I think this will be great. This was the first communist text I ever read, and I would love to read it again, more deeply.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am most certainly interested in this. I think we should start from the very beginning, and then take it from there.

[( R )evolution]

Shit are we going to do this?

[Rawthentic]

Well goddam it, here's the first paragraph:


“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost generic terms.”

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:11 pm
Well goddam it, here's the first paragraph:


“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost generic terms.”
IMO, Lenin is basically saying that "freedom" and other similar terms have become devoid of any real meaning; they are simply repeated without any regard for what it actually means or what the consequences are. Their overuse is what has come to define it more than anything else.

That's my first impression.

[The Author]

Originally posted by V.I. Lenin
“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost generic terms.”

My impression is similar to what manic expression has written. Lenin is introducing the reader to how certain political groups scream about needing the freedom to "criticize," yet the nature of the slogan is questionable when one looks at the particulars of the situation at hand. And that is what Lenin seeks to do: study the nature of the political struggle and see if this slogan has substance and is a reasonable one.

[( R )evolution]

As Maniac stated, I believe Lenin is stating that "Freedom of criticism” has just become a word with no real meaning because it has just been used over and over again so its real meaning has become destitute. The people of that age is just using the word so much so that they have forgotten its real meaning and the implications of it.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Much like the word "freedom" period.

[The Grey Blur]

“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost generic terms.”
I feel Lenin is saying that the term "freedom of critiscism" is being over-used, without context or basis, specifically in this case in debates between (Bourgeois) Democrats and (Marxist) Socialists, with the Democrats claiming that Socialists wish to put an end to this "freedom". Lenin then points out the Democrats hypocrisy in that some of them have attacked the freedom of scientific invesigation, which is the definition of critiscism/investigation, into the very world around us.

That's what I'd get so far...anyone who disagrees feel free to correct me.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

yeah this is of course, the first paragraph, but sets the stage for what is to come. Basically he'll say that the freedom of critiscism being advocated by the bourgious democrats is actually not freedom of critiscism at all.

[( R )evolution]

This is the second paragraph.



In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand.

[Rawthentic]

I believe this second paragraph again smashes on the false bourgeois and petty-bourgeois "criticism" in the form of "truce-resolutions", as if that involved any scientific investigation and real criticism at all.

Thoughts? This is the first time I read this, so I'm not quite sure.

[manic expression]

To me, this is introducing the background of the question he will answer. The conflicts and the subsequent truces are a difficult problem, as is the criticism towards Marxism by Social-Democrats and others. Lenin is illustrating that which he seeks to refute.

[The Author]

Originally posted by V.I. Lenin
In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand.

What Lenin refers to here is the rising trend of revisionism. Here, the principles of Marxism have been revised by Bernstein and Millerand to reflect their own opportunist values at the expense of scientific socialism and practical work, especially revolutionary activity in favor of reformism. Social-democracy in its past form has been negated; in its place a new form of two trends has arisen.

[The Grey Blur]

In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand.
Details the the refomtist trend within the communist movement around the turn of the 20th century, as represented by Bernstein and Millerand who supported participation in bourgeois governments. Also, ironic use of Bernstein's phrase, "orthodox Marxism".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Lenin
In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand.

This is an important paragraph because it is where Lenin proposes the fact that there are real marxists,

those who would be called the bolsheviks, who advocated seizure of power, revolution, and socialism

and those who would be called the mensheviks, who basically are just advocating a nice face on capitalism, and are completly deviating from marxism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Third Paragraph. Say something if you think we are going to fast. Also, feel free to analyze all paragraphs preceding the one we are on.


Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

Lenin is basically calling Bernstein and the trend we know as modern social democracy utopian and counterproductive and a deviation from the scientific theory of marxism.

[The Grey Blur]

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.
First line is the demands of the reactionary "socialists". The rest is a general critique of these misguided socialists and details the fundamental pillars of Marxism they deny.

[More Fire for the People]

“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost generic terms.”
I think that it would be reckless to charge into What is to be done? without clearly understanding the case and context of the text; or as Mao would put it “concrete analysis of concrete conditions”. So to begin with the first part of the first paragraph: ‘freedom of criticism’ would be, and is a fashionable, reproach against communism but in an ironic twist it has become associated historically with Leninism. Therefore, it is clearly necessary to understand how this phrase ‘freedom of criticism’ became a charge against Leninism in particular and communism in general and understands its development.

Apparently, the particular phrase ‘freedom of criticism’ in the context of WITBD is a reference to Bernstein’s ‘freedom of criticism’ of Marxism. This ‘freedom of criticism’ and Bernstein’s revisionism was adopted by the Rabocheye Dyelo group who used the policy to make ‘political’ issues separate and subordinate to ‘economic’ issues. This line was taken up to justify the support of supposedly socialist and working class organisations for liberal bourgeois organisations.

Thus, it is proper that Lenin should begin a polemic against revisionist tail-endism with a proper criticism of the prevailing slogan of said movement. Lenin recognized that ‘freedom of criticism’, in the mind of the average worker, appears just as important as constitutional phrases protecting freedom of speech, press, scientific inquiry, etc. The revisionists used this ‘self-truth’ to cloak their betrayal of Marxism with an appeal to the ‘common sense’.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

thanks for that Hopscotch that is important to point out.

[More Fire for the People]

In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand.

Lenin then goes on to clarify which sects support ‘freedom of criticism’ a la Bernstein and those that do not. I think this is an early proof of the continual bipolarisation of politics that Lenin upholds in the future. Either you are for ‘Marxism’ or against it. There can be no divisions, sects, tendencies, etc. Lenin says that the ‘conflict between these trends … smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”’. However, it is very clear for us, and for Lenin, that these ‘truce resolutions’ are a mere quieting of internal critique within the Social Democratic movement.

The ‘new trend’, the one that had gained the upper hand was led theoretically by Bernstein and practically by Millerand. Bernstein took a stand against ‘dogmatic’ Marxism by depleting it of its Hegelian content and, in its place, enthroning neo-Kantianism. As Bernstein rejected the critical dimension of Marxism in theory and took up the slogan “The movement is everything, the goal is nothing.” Millerand did so in practice by rejecting his former notions of collective ownership and workers’ association for ‘reforms’.

Then Lenin goes on to enumerate the revisions of Marxism that took place under the Kantian hegemony of Bernstein, Millerand, the Austo-Marxists, et. al.

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

The proper recourse against this revisionism would have been a Hegelian attack on the Kantian movement — a re-proof of the materialist course of history, the internal dynamo of this course, and the application of this dynamic and materialist analysis of capitalism and its direction. That is the essence of scientific — negative, critical, dialectical — socialism. It has been so long since I have read WITBD that I have forgotten whether or not Lenin has taken this course.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 25, 2007 09:56 am
I think that it would be reckless to charge into What is to be done? without clearly understanding the case and context of the text;



Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

The proper recourse against this revisionism would have been a Hegelian attack on the Kantian movement — a re-proof of the materialist course of history, the internal dynamo of this course, and the application of this dynamic and materialist analysis of capitalism and its direction. That is the essence of scientific — negative, critical, dialectical — socialism. It has been so long since I have read WITBD that I have forgotten whether or not Lenin has taken this course.
I agree. And I think there's an implied mistake in describing the context in your second post:


Lenin then goes on to clarify which sects support ‘freedom of criticism’ a la Bernstein and those that do not. I think this is an early proof of the continual bipolarisation of politics that Lenin upholds in the future.
....
Then Lenin goes on to enumerate the revisions of Marxism that took place under the Kantian hegemony of Bernstein, Millerand, the Austo-Marxists, et. al.

The Lenin of 1901 - the Lenin of anytime before 1914 - considers Kautsky and Bebel his equivalents. He is relentless against the right-wing of the Social-Democracy, but favorable towards the center, which verbally was still commmitted to Marxism.

Much of what Lenin says in "What is to Be Done" would be commonplace throughout the Second International of the time. He quotes Kautsky in support of some of his points.

So to identify the Lenin of "what is to be done" with Lenin's later break with reformism would be an error....I'm guessing that's what you're referring to by "continual bipolarisation."

Not the best description of Lenin's later politics either, IMO; Lenin was a very sophisticated political tactician, not prone to pretending there were only two pieces on the chessboard.