Trade Unions, Marx vs. Lenin

[Rawthentic]

In Lenin's writings, I have read and conversed that he thought that the working class was only capable of achieving a trade-union consciousness. That is, they relegate themselves to mere wage increases and better working-hours, but cannot obtain a socialist class-consciousness, and this revolutionary socialist theory comes and has come from the propertied classes, and he uses Marx and Engels as examples, although weak ones at that.

Marx wrote something on trade unions that contradicts Lenin's elitist thought:

"Trade unions are the schools of socialism. It is in trade unions that workers educate themselves and become socialists, because under their very eyes and every day the struggle with capital is taking place."

Is it accurate what I say on Lenin? What are people's thoughts on Marx's writings on the importance of trade unions and Lenin's take on it? Thanks.

[RNK]

Seems there's very little contradiction to me.

Marx is write in saying that unions are the 'schools' of socialism. But in and of themselves, unions are not necessarily revolutionary, in that although they are socialist, their goals and aspirations are usually limited to short-term struggles for immediate gain, while lacking the ability to 'see the big revolutionary picture'. Hence the need for a vangaurd party to properly wield that revolutionary consciousness which union movements aren't really capable of doing.

That's my opinion of it, anyway.

[Rawthentic]

Lenin says that workers don't have the capacity to see beyond immediate demands, which is plain wrong, and proceeds to say that they revolutionary theoreticians come from the propertied classes, which negates the idea of proletarian self-emancipation for the intelligentsia. Marx, on the other hand, argues that through trade unions, which Lenin sees as an end, the workers achieve class-consciousness and are able to see the true workings of capitalism through their direct contact in the class struggle.

[black magick hustla]

Rudolf Rocker had a similar line to marx's. He argued that through trade unions, workers are able to practice "class struggle" and thus learn to organize themselves through trial and error.

[Vargha Poralli]

One thing we have to remember is Trade Unions acted very much differently in Marx's and Lenin's time.

During the Second International time there had developed a bureaucracy in the Trade Unions because of the bad effect of the S.I influence with in it which had became a full fledged reformist at that time. It is not only Lenin who had been uncomfortable with Trade Unions practice at that time but also other revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg.


But Lenin did not show any elists tendency at that time like you have imagined. Both Lenin and Rosa ad encouraged workers to take part active in the Trade Unions to fight the bureaucratic tendencies. Lenin seperated his Vanguard for the reason because of the greatest repression going on in Tsar's Russia.

After the October revolution and capture of power Lenin did not want to incorporate the Trade Unions with the state as Trotsky suggested. It is because he thought that USSR is not yet ready for transition and the Trade Unions needed to be Independent to fight the bureaucratic Tendencies of the state.


Lenin says that workers don't have the capacity to see beyond immediate demands, which is plain wrong, and proceeds to say that they revolutionary theoreticians come from the propertied classes, which negates the idea of proletarian self-emancipation for the intelligentsia. Marx, on the other hand, argues that through trade unions, which Lenin sees as an end, the workers achieve class-consciousness and are able to see the true workings of capitalism through their direct contact in the class struggle.

Could you provide the source for it ? From which of the Lenin's works did you get these things ?

[RGacky3]

Lenins ideas about the working class, shows a little bit of prejudice against them, like he thinks they are too dumb to figure things out themselves, too stupid to organize them selves in unions and fight Capitalists, they need smart professionals like Lenin who know what they are doing to do it for them. It kind of shows why the USSR never became a real Democracy or close to a Communistic state, because according too Lenin, they are to stupid for democracy or Communism, i.e. the people and the workers can't handle themselves, they need Lenin to handle them

[The Grey Blur]

RGacky how about actually reading some Lenin?

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292283749 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61969&st=0&#entry1292283749)

I suggest you join.

[The Grey Blur]

Hasta: I would like to see where you got this idea, perhaps you have some quotes?

The unions were only developing in Marx's time and I don't believe he totally foresaw how their leadership would become compromised with the beurgeois. In Lenin's time the unions were controlled by Mensheviks and SDs, who rejected revolution, and he encouraged workers to join the unions and reverse these trends.

I hope that answers some of your questions?

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 16, 2007 09:12 am
RGacky how about actually reading some Lenin?

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292283749 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61969&st=0&#entry1292283749)

I suggest you join.
Your right I hav'nt read a lot of Lenins writings, and I should.
His actions speak as well though.

[Rawthentic]

It does answer some questions, at least to the background as to why Lenin said this. I will offer some quotes, I believe that is in What is to be Done?, but since the book is at school, the quotes will have to wait.

I'll look for them online later. But it is no mystery that Lenin thought that the revolutionary theorists would come from the propertied classes, as he was no worker. What are people's thoughts on this?

[Vargha Poralli]

But it is no mystery that Lenin thought that the revolutionary theorists would come from the propertied classes,

He lived in the beginning of the 19th century so he claimed it what is to be done.

And he is right in it. Marx,Engels,Himself,Trotsky were all came from the propertied class of their day.

But certainly that idea is no way applicable today.



as he was no worker

I think we should see what he worked for rather what class did he belong to.Regardless what you think of USSR as the workers and peasants of Russia gave the toughest resistance to Nazi Invaders despite the erroneous leadership. It lasted for 80+ years despite the degeneration.

[Rawthentic]

I think we should see what he worked for rather what class did he belong to
I see what you are trying to say here, I agree that Lenin would have maintained a revolutionary line, despite mistakes such as the NEP, which introduced petty-bourgeois functionaries and managers, thus ending proletarian rule.

What about Bob Avakian in this case? I know that he can't be compared to Lenin, but he claims to fight for communist revolution. But as you said about the revolutionary theorists coming from the propertied classes in our day:

But certainly that idea is no way applicable today.

[Vargha Poralli]

despite mistakes such as the NEP

NEP was a necessary step to stop more peasant rebellions like Kronstadt. The failure of German and Hungarian revolutions the defeat in Polish-Soviet War and devastation of the Internal economy etc where the factors which made Bolsheviks to adopt NEP. Regarding which Lenin clearly said that we were taking one step backward to make two step forwards.


which introduced petty-bourgeois functionaries and managers, thus ending proletarian rule.

NEP did not empower managers and the bureaucracy. It was individual peasants who benifitted most from it. And despite that it was heavily regulated.


What about Bob Avakian in this case? I know that he can't be compared to Lenin, but he claims to fight for communist revolution.

Again we must look at actions. I don't live in USA and I don't know much about him or the reasons behind his actions. I think you should judge it yourself.

This post by Zampano in another thread might help (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62632&view=findpost&p=1292263494)

[Rawthentic]

NEP was a necessary step to stop more peasant rebellions like Kronstadt
It was not a peasant revolution; it was a proletarian one against the increasing bureaucracy and Party rule.

Leo Uillean tell why:


On the class nature of the rebels lets look at the class composition of the Provisional Revolutionary committee of the Kronstadt soviet:

* Petritchenko, chief quartermaster of the battleship 'Petropavlovsk',
* Yakovenko, liaison telephonist to the Kronstadt section,
* Ossossov, boiler man in the battleship 'Sebastopol',
* Arkhipov, chief engineer,
* Perepelkin, electrician in the battleship 'Sebastopol',
* Patrouchev, chief electrician in the 'Petropavlovsk',
* Koupolov, head male nurse,
* Verchinin, sailor in the 'Sebastopol',
* Toukin, worker in the 'Electrotechnical' factory,
* Romanenko, docks maintenance worker,
* Orechin, headmaster of the Third labour School,
* Valk, sawmill worker,
* Pavlov, worker in a marine mining shop,
* Boikev, head of the building section of the Kronstadt fortress,
* Kilgast, harbour pilot.

Also Israel Getzler notes that the politicized Red sailor still predominated at Kronstadt at the end of 1920 is borne out by the hard statistical data available regarding the crews of the two major battleships, the Petropavlosk and the Sevastopol, both reknowned since 1917 for their revolutionary zeal and Bolshevik allegiance. Of 2,028 sailors whose years of enlistment are known, no less than 1,904 or 93.9% were recruited into the navy before and during the 1917 revolution, the largest group, 1,195, having joined in the years 1914-16. Only 137 sailors or 6.8% were recruited in the years 1918-21, including three who were conscripted in 1921, and they were the only ones who had not been there during the 1917 revolution. As for the sailors of the Baltic Fleet in general (and that included the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol), of those serving on 1 January 1921 at least 75.5% are likely to have been drafted from Great Russian areas (mainly central Russia and the Volga area), some 10% from the Ukraine and 9% from Finland, Latvia and Poland. If we take this information as being representative of the Kronstadt rebels as a whole it would suggest that 59% of the sailors had been there since at least 1916 whilst 93.9% had been there at the time of the October revolution, hardly a great change in the composition of the garrison from when it was the ‘stronghold of the revolution’ in 1917.

So it seems like it was composed of workers, and sailors to me. Unlike the Bolshevik party Politburo at the time, which was composed of full members - Kamenev, Krestinsky, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky; candidate members - Bukharin, Zinovyev and Kalinin, only one of whom, Kalinin, had ever been a worker, and two of whom, Trotsky, and Zinovyev, actually came from rich peasant backgrounds.

Of course you can believe in what you want to believe, you don't seem to really interested in reality anyway.

[Severian]

I'm not totally sure if that Marx quote is genuine, or what it's context was. Can't track down a really definite source on it. But anyway.

In Marx's time, it was necessary to emphasize the importance of labor unions; previous socialist and communist sects had ignored them. Or in some cases, as with Proudhon, opposed them.

Lenin was writing a polemic against "socialists" who proposed to reduce everything to the economic struggle and nothing else. He pointed out that nobody develops socialist consciousness through trade unionism alone - and certainly there are plenty of militant trade unionists who have nothing to do with any kind of socialism.

Now, what did Lenin actually write in What is to be done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm)

First:
The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.

This idea was not at all original to Lenin; it was commonplace in the Socialist International at the time. In fact, Lenin quotes Kautsky saying the same thing a little further down that page I linked.

This idea seemed to be supported by the history of "socialist" parties, especially in Russia. Given history since then, it doesn't seem like such a great idea to enshrine a special role for intellectuals; you won't find much if anything along those lines in Lenin's writings after 1914, after the collapse of the Second International (and Lenin's illusions in it.)

But Lenin's main point in "What is To Be Done" (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm) was of more lasting value:

Social-Democracy represents the working class, not in its relation to a given group of employers alone, but in its relation to all classes of modern society and to the state as an organised political force. Hence, it follows that not only must Social-Democrats not confine themselves exclusively to the economic struggle, but that they must not allow the organisation of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must take up actively the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness.
....
The question arises, what should political education consist in? Can it be confined to the propaganda of working-class hostility to the autocracy? Of course not. It is not enough to explain to the workers that they are politically oppressed (any more than it is to explain to them that their interests are antagonistic to the interests of the employers). Agitation must be conducted with regard to every concrete example of this oppression (as we have begun to carry on agitation round concrete examples of economic oppression). Inasmuch as this oppression affects the most diverse classes of society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in the most varied spheres of life and activity – vocational, civic, personal, family, religious, scientific, etc., etc. – is it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task of developing the political consciousness of the workers if we do not undertake the organisation of the political exposure of the autocracy in all its aspects?
....
Is it true that, in general,[3] the economic struggle "is the most widely applicable means” of drawing the masses into the political struggle? It is entirely untrue. Any and every manifestation of police tyranny and autocratic outrage, not only in connection with the economic struggle, is not one whit less “widely applicable” as a means of “drawing in” the masses. The rural superintendents and the flogging of peasants, the corruption of the officials and the police treatment of the “common people” in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes and the persecution of the religious sects, the humiliating treatment of soldiers and the barrack methods in the treatment of the students and liberal intellectuals – do all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the “economic” struggle, represent, in general, less “widely applicable” means and occasions for political agitation and for drawing the masses into the political struggle? The very opposite is true. Of the sum total of cases in which the workers suffer (either on their own account or on account of those closely connected with them) from tyranny, violence, and the lack of rights, undoubtedly only a small minority represent cases of police tyranny in the trade union struggle as such. Why then should we, beforehand, restrict the scope of political agitation by declaring only one of the means to be “the most widely applicable”, when Social-Democrats must have, in addition, other, generally speaking, no less “widely applicable” means?

And much more along those lines.

Class consciousness isn't just the consciousness that your own boss is an exploiter and that it's necessary to resist him/her - it's the consciousness of how the whole system works and what has to be done about it.

And that consciousness does have to be "brought in from outside" any particular struggle, any particular workplace and community - it can only arise from connecting all the different struggles, and the different social layers of the exploited and oppressed....

Because part of communist consciousness is the awareness that the working class can only liberate itself by leading all the oppressed and exploited to overthrow the bosses, and by eliminating every kind of oppression and exploitation.

A union isn't going to link all these different struggles and illuminate the big picture. A party's needed for that.

[Rawthentic]

I'm not totally sure if that Marx quote is genuine, or what it's context was. Can't track down a really definite source on it. But anyway.
It is a speech given by Marx to a German Trade Union delegation in Hanover in 1869. This is in a book I have, Karl Marx, 2nd Edition, Selected Writings by David Mc Lellan.

[( R )evolution]

In Marx time, trade unions stopped the revolution. The bourgeois were choosing between two evils. World Wide worker revolutions and the destruction of the bourgeois wealth. Or allowing the workers to gather in unions to get some immediate gain (such as higher pay, better working conditions etc..) The workers saw themselves getting some bones so they were content with the current situation. The bourgeois by allowing the workers some benefits stopped revolution. Lenin saw trade unions as a organization which does not see the whole picture. They only see how to exist within the capitalist frame work and NOT to fight for communism. They want to be content within capitalism not revolution towards communism.

[Rawthentic]

In Marx time, trade unions stopped the revolution
Most definitely not in Marx's opinion, just take a look again at his quote on trade unions and how they could develop class consciousness. I'm not implying that its the sole way that it can happen, as I agree with Severian that a party is necessary for that.

[( R )evolution]

Did, I say in Marx opinion? No. I said in Marx time. The reality of the situation is that trade unions stopped a possible revolution by replacing it with some form of content by allowing the workers to fight for benefits in capitalism and thus stopping a possible revolution. Just because Marx said it doesn't mean it is gold. Marx has gotten things wrong before.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:08 pm

I'm not totally sure if that Marx quote is genuine, or what it's context was. Can't track down a really definite source on it. But anyway.
It is a speech given by Marx to a German Trade Union delegation in Hanover in 1869. This is in a book I have, Karl Marx, 2nd Edition, Selected Writings by David Mc Lellan.
OK...I was looking for more context and couldn't find it on marxists.org. Not that marxists.org has everything.

Probably Marx's most in-depth statement on the role of the unions was Trade Unions: Their Past, Present and Future (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1866/instructions.htm#06)

[BobKKKindle$]

Class struggle, although a constant feature of all Capitalist societies, is not constant in its intensity and the aspirations of the working class. Workers taking industrial action through their trade unions, or even doing something that we may consider utterly trivial, such as taking an unauthorised break at work, is a form of class struggle - but we would not say it is a form of revolutionary class struggle, because workers are clearly not trying to change the economic structure of society and are not confronting the Bourgeoisie.

I think it is worth pointing out, though, that all trade unions are not organised in the same way and are not based on the same ideology. Some trade unions are dominated by full-time, unelected officials, who prevent workers and shop-stewards from taking innovative and independent action, and often actively discourage revolutionary action when other sections of the working class have confronted their managers and the Bourgeoisie (Bear witness to the CGT in the event of May 68', which was controlled by the Stalinist Communist party). At the other end of the scale, however, some trade Unions are organised explicitly for the purpose of uniting and organising workers with an ultimate aim of overthrowing the Capitalist mode of production (The CNT being the most obvious example).

So some members have made cases that rest upon huge generalisations in this debate.

[Rawthentic]

So some members have made cases that rest upon huge generalisations in this debate.
Have we? I mean this is a theoretical debate, not an historical one.

[RGacky3]

If its a theoretical Debate your going to have to separate the Teamster type unions from the Woobly Type unions because they are both different in theory, in practice and in goal.

[The Grey Blur]

If you think that you've clearly missed the point. Reactionary unions are still organisations of the working class and, as we want a working-class revolution, we have to work within them. Not stand outside with our ideologically pure (yet miniscule) unions.

[JoyDivision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:06 am
In Lenin's writings, I have read and conversed that he thought that the working class was only capable of achieving a trade-union consciousness. That is, they relegate themselves to mere wage increases and better working-hours, but cannot obtain a socialist class-consciousness, and this revolutionary socialist theory comes and has come from the propertied classes, and he uses Marx and Engels as examples, although weak ones at that.

Lenin advocated volunteerism which means that the intelligentsia must spur or start the socialist revolution because the working class in not conscious of there place in historical Materialism. You are right to see a difference as Marx advocated the the working class would commit the act of revolution while Lenin had the intelligentsia commit the act.

Lenin argued that the working class couldn't see past trade-unionist struggles such as minimum wage and and a 40 hour work week, while other Communists hold that trade-Unionist struggles are necessary for socialism and ultimately Communism to come about. One can criticize Lenin for failing to allow Capitalism to develop into monopoly Capitalism, and thus dooming the Russian Revolution before it started. One cannot expect a revolution to work if Capitalism has not had a chance to develop infrastructure necessary for the distribution of goods after a Communist revolution. We see elements of this in Lenin's policy after the Russian revolution i.e. NEP.

[rouchambeau]

This may not be the most germane comment to the discussion but I had a thought about Lenin's position on unions.

Sure, unions are anything but revolutionary. But I think Lenin jumped the gun when he concluded that that meant only a vanguard could lead workers to socialism.

[Rawthentic]

Lenin advocated volunteerism which means that the intelligentsia must spur or start the socialist revolution because the working class in not conscious of there place in historical Materialism.
Actually, it was due to the Russian material conditions, where the working-class was relatively small and it was very underdeveloped. For example, main problems were the lack of literacy or how to run machinery, leading to the infringement of self-management, not to say that it did not exist to a certain degree.


while other Communists hold that trade-Unionist struggles are necessary for socialism and ultimately Communism to come about.
No. Communists are the politically advanced section of the working-class, the vanguard. Communists push for the seizure of state power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, not mere economist demands.


One can criticize Lenin for failing to allow Capitalism to develop into monopoly Capitalism, and thus dooming the Russian Revolution before it started. One cannot expect a revolution to work if Capitalism has not had a chance to develop infrastructure necessary for the distribution of goods after a Communist revolution. We see elements of this in Lenin's policy after the Russian revolution i.e. NEP.
I wouldn't say that. At this time, Russia was one of the most politically advanced nations, but economically backwards, which was to be a major point. The proletariat, leading the poor peasantry, exercised state power, and were in the process of administering society to socialism. I agree that a lack of such an infrastructure to support a socialist society for the most part lacked, but the working-class was in power and had the ability to administer this transition.

It is not that Lenin didn't allow capitalism to proceed, because the historical stages do not pass the same as Marx predicted, they are not all uniform so to say. The situation was so advanced politically in Russia, and after the February Revolution the proletariat was tasting power through the soviets, so proletarian revolution could not be held back to allow capitalism to proceed, as that line of thought is counter-revolutionary in very revolutionary conditions. Let us also remember that the Russian Revolution depended heavily on the support of the proletarian revolution in Germany, which never materialized, leaving Russia to their own resources.

[Rawthentic]

Lenin advocated volunteerism which means that the intelligentsia must spur or start the socialist revolution because the working class in not conscious of there place in historical Materialism.
Actually, it was due to the Russian material conditions, where the working-class was relatively small and it was very underdeveloped. For example, main problems were the lack of literacy or how to run machinery, leading to the infringement of self-management, not to say that it did not exist to a certain degree.


while other Communists hold that trade-Unionist struggles are necessary for socialism and ultimately Communism to come about.
No. Communists are the politically advanced section of the working-class, the vanguard. Communists push for the seizure of state power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, not mere economist demands.


One can criticize Lenin for failing to allow Capitalism to develop into monopoly Capitalism, and thus dooming the Russian Revolution before it started. One cannot expect a revolution to work if Capitalism has not had a chance to develop infrastructure necessary for the distribution of goods after a Communist revolution. We see elements of this in Lenin's policy after the Russian revolution i.e. NEP.
I wouldn't say that. At this time, Russia was one of the most politically advanced nations, but economically backwards, which was to be a major point. The proletariat, leading the poor peasantry, exercised state power, and were in the process of administering society to socialism. I agree that a lack of such an infrastructure to support a socialist society for the most part lacked, but the working-class was in power and had the ability to administer this transition.

It is not that Lenin didn't allow capitalism to proceed, because the historical stages do not pass the same as Marx predicted, they are not all uniform so to say. The situation was so advanced politically in Russia, and after the February Revolution the proletariat was tasting power through the soviets, so proletarian revolution could not be held back to allow capitalism to proceed, as that line of thought is counter-revolutionary in very revolutionary conditions. Let us also remember that the Russian Revolution depended heavily on the support of the proletarian revolution in Germany, which never materialized, leaving Russia to their own resources.

[JoyDivision]

Actually, it was due to the Russian material conditions, where the working-class was relatively small and it was very underdeveloped. For example, main problems were the lack of literacy or how to run machinery, leading to the infringement of self-management, not to say that it did not exist to a certain degree.

Literacy wouldn't necessarily matter except for the reason I gave....if they are unable to understand their role in the dynamic tension between owner and laborer. While I agree that size could matter, the February revolution proved that it didn't for Russia. The problem was ultimately that the Russian working class was not aware enough to do anything but commit itself to trade-unionist struggle which is borne out by the strikes just prior to the February revolution.



No. Communists are the politically advanced section of the working-class, the vanguard. Communists push for the seizure of state power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, not mere economist demands.

I use the term "Communist" as a blanket for all the different theories of Communism. i.e. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Libertarian Socialism, Maoism... So when I say "other" communists I am talking about other Communist schools of thought, such as Marxism in this case. Which views Capitalism as a dialectic prerequisite for Socialism.


At this time, Russia was one of the most politically advanced nations, but economically backwards, which was to be a major point. The proletariat, leading the poor peasantry, exercised state power, and were in the process of administering society to socialism. I agree that a lack of such an infrastructure to support a socialist society for the most part lacked, but the working-class was in power and had the ability to administer this transition

The working class had much power prior to the February Revolution, however, they did NOT have the ability to administer a transition to Socialism. They had their try at things during the revolution of 1905 and proved unable to understand their dynamic role. They limited there struggle to strikes and riots, and were not capable of understand nor envisioning a total revolution that would uproot every part of the Russian political/economic condition. I also feel you do not place a high enough priority on the infrastructure Capitalism creates.


t is not that Lenin didn't allow capitalism to proceed, because the historical stages do not pass the same as Marx predicted, they are not all uniform so to say. The situation was so advanced politically in Russia, and after the February Revolution the proletariat was tasting power through the soviets, so proletarian revolution could not be held back to allow capitalism to proceed, as that line of thought is counter-revolutionary in very revolutionary conditions. Let us also remember that the Russian Revolution depended heavily on the support of the proletarian revolution in Germany, which never materialized, leaving Russia to their own resources.

Perhaps I should dismiss my above statements given this misunderstanding, as I must point out that the February revolution was Lenin's Volunteerism in practice. i.e. The revolution brought to fruition by the intelligentsia....

[Louis Pio]

Just a very small contribution, it's just this discussion keeps popping up and nobody seems to care how Lenin later said he was wrong at the time. As Severian said he was writing a polemic against the economisists and therefore went to much in the other direction, and as I said he later aknowlegded his mistake on that subject.

[Rawthentic]

I also feel you do not place a high enough priority on the infrastructure Capitalism creates.


I see how important this is. In fact, it was the crux around which the Bolshevik Revolution rested. Lenin explicitly talked about the need to transition to socialism after the revolution with the working class and poor peasantry in power.

Teis, what are you speaking of here? Can you provide some sources?

[Louis Pio]

Ok need to go and look it up, but Lenin's own footnotes to later editions says that he "bend the stick to much in the other direction" in his polemic against the economists.
I will look it up soon, should be in the online versions

[Vargha Poralli]

Well anyway this work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm) shows how Lenin saw the role of Trade Unions in Soviet Russia. Generally Lenin was speaking against the incorporation of Trade Unions to the state apparatus a proposal which has been made by Trotsky and Bukharin.

[Louis Pio]

Btw haven't got time to find the quote, will do when all those horrible easter things are done