Lenin and the Bolsheviks

[Noah]

I've been reading up on Lenin and almost finished a book on the Russian Revolution.

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of Lenin and the Bolsheviks? I think it's wrong they took control of the country although they weren't support by most people and moved towards socialism as socialism is a people's movement and not a party's movement.

Also what do you think of Trotsky? I think his tactics were too brutal - although necessary in order for civil war success? I'm not sure...

Opinions please!!

Yours,
Love Forum Bannana

[Janus]

There are tons of threads on Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks, it's been discussed countless times in History.

Lenin and Bolsheviks (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53950&hl=+Lenin++bolsheviks)

Lenin (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59534&hl=Lenin)

Lenin (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56689&hl=Lenin)

Lenin (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54591&hl=Lenin)

Bolshevik revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63787&hl=bolshevik)

[The Grey Blur]

Lenin was a great Socialist in my opinion in opposing the patriotic socialists who en masse abondoned Marxism at the start of WW1 and through forging a revolutionary party in the most difficult of conditions under Tzarism in Russia. As well as bringing it down ;)


I think it's wrong they took control of the country although they weren't support by most people and moved towards socialism as socialism is a people's movement and not a party's movement.
Revolutions don't ever have the support of 100% of the population. As Trotsky said, they are made by a minority - the only "approval" we as Marxists need is that of the working-class, which the Bolsheviks had as the elections to the soviets clearly show. The young Russian working-class broke the chain of international Capitalism and needed the support of their international brethren to survive. When this did not occur the isolated worker's state degenerated.


Also what do you think of Trotsky? I think his tactics were too brutal - although necessary in order for civil war success? I'm not sure...
Yes, the tactics of killing deserters, the conscripted army, the extermination of enemies to the socialist state, the use of ex-tzarist officers were all brutal. And yes, they were also all neccessary. As Trotksky said one of the most unnatural things in the world is for a man to go to war. The soldiers needed to be strict in discipline and ready to crush the enemies of the fledgling worker's state. The people I've seen argue against the tactics and structure of the Red Army under Trotsky are invariably people with absolutely no idea of the context of the Civil War (mass desertions of the cities, starvation, disentegrating army, etc). I suggest the Bolsheviks in Power by Illyin Shenevsky as a good illustration of the period of Civil War and the (often reluctant) steps that had to be taken to win it. I think if you agree with the revolution then you must also agree with the steps taken to defend it.

Trotsky continued the line of true Marxism later on after the distortions of Stalinism and fought the mistakes, lies and hypocrisies that this brought about.

There's my opinion.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:44 am
I've been reading up on Lenin and almost finished a book on the Russian Revolution.

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of Lenin and the Bolsheviks? I think it's wrong they took control of the country although they weren't support by most people and moved towards socialism as socialism is a people's movement and not a party's movement.

Also what do you think of Trotsky? I think his tactics were too brutal - although necessary in order for civil war success? I'm not sure...

Opinions please!!

Yours,
Love Forum Bannana

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of Lenin and the Bolsheviks?

I think they are great persons who tried to Fast Forward history. And they were partially succesfull in it.


I think it's wrong they took control of the country although they weren't support by most people and moved towards socialism as socialism is a people's movement and not a party's movement.

Firts of all read your history correctly. They got majority in the soviets which they wouldnít have got in the first place without the support of people.


Also what do you think of Trotsky? I think his tactics were too brutal - although necessary in order for civil war success?

Yes the brutal;ity of the Jacobins prevented French revolution from the reaction for time being.

You have to be brutal towards your enemies else your enemies would write your history.

[Forward Union]

Well,
Lenin's decisions to take decision making power away from the workers, and into the hands of capitalist advisors, smashing union rights, executing leading Libertarian-Communists and workplace agitators, and going to war with and destroying one of the first example's of Workers Power in the Free Territories of Ukraine... I would consider him to be nothing but an example of utter failure and an object of disgust.

I simply can't forgive him for the execution of thousands of class-concious workers, who fought tooth and nail for democratic power in the face of bolshevik repression.

I think he acted with the best of intentions, and without hindsight, genuinely thought that his authoritarian programme would lead to a communist society, but the fact is that his project failed in every instance, and he took successful projects, and thousands of dedicated comrades that disagreed with his programe, down with him.

I realise that this post amounts to little more than anti-leninist rethoric, Im not really interested in expanding on my claims. If you're interested in reading about workers struggles against Lenin and the Bolsheviks I strongly advise checking out the following;

The Bolsheviks and Workers Control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)

kronstadt (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/africa/wsfws/2_2_kronstadt.html)

The Makhnovists (http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement)

Russian Revolution Lost (http://libcom.org/intro/russian-revolution-1917-1921)

[LSD]

I just wanted to know what you guys thought of Lenin and the Bolsheviks?

um ...did you try searching, 'cause I don't think there's been a subject discussed more than old Vladimir's little science project.

Anyway, read this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53950) and this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57918) or use the search tool and get a less biased selection... ;)

[Noah]

Okay thanks LSD...It's just my teacher told me when they wanted to make a constituent assemply most of the elected were Social Revolutionaries so the Bolsheviks just closed the place down and stopped a constituent assembly forming.

[Tower of Bebel]

Which is true. I asked this in a topic earlier but nobody could answer it.
I read Luxemburg on this matter and she sais that although it was wise to end the forming of this Constituent Assembly because of the social-revolutionaries who had won the elections, Lenin and Trotsky shouldn't have made an end to the whole concept. They should have assembled a new one instead of making an end to this particular type of democracy.

[Led Zeppelin]

As you can see from the first link LSD posted, my point of view is theoretically more logical than his.

I believe if you want to study the history of the Russian revolution you have to make an important decision not to believe everything you hear from self-proclaimed leftists, because a lot of crap gets spread around by them.

That's my advice to you.

[Rawthentic]

Trying to discard the typical anti-Lenin rhetoric, it is safe to say that the working class took political power in Russia, where then the Bolsheviks were able to win a majority in their Soviets.

It is true that power was taken away from the working class, but LU, if you can't objectively analyze why, then it is useless.

[KC]

I wonder how long it will take for syndicat to come in and talk about how Marxism is a petty-bourgeois ideology and how the Bolsheviks tricked everyone into supporting them so they could take power and kill everyone. :lol:

[Lenin II]

Lenin was a great man and a strong leader who fought for a perfect cause, but his legacy has failed. As a Communist I feel that the post-Lenin CCCP completely betrayed the fundamentals of the Communist ideal. They took Marx’s and Lenin’s words and engraved them backwards. FUCK YOU STALIN.

(EDIT 2008: I am now ruthlessly pro-Stalin. Funny how people change.)

Trotsky was ruthless during the civil war, no doubt. But it was a civil war, Trotsky’s enemies were not better. The party did what it had to do to survive. Just about anything he wrote during the civil war--Terrorism and Communism is a good one--elaborates on the militarization of labor and purging opposition to the Bolshevik party. Trotsky later admitted that his ideas about this were wrong.
I admit, the Red Army was probably brutal in the civil war. Che Guevara was a guerrilla fighter as well, but that doesn’t mean he cannot be idolized. I mean, even Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Don’t believe everything the Americans and the Cappies say, they only tell lies about Lenin and Communism.

[Rawthentic]

Syndicat is just a confused economist. I hate that word because RCPers use it when I criticize St. Avakian, but he is one.

[syndicat]

what's noteworthy here is that zampano and hasta won't respond to my actual arguments, so they call me names ("economist") or try to put words in my mouth, that is, attribute things I've not said.

the basic issue is this: do you see the aim as being the liberation of the working class from the system of class domination and exploitation? do you believe that the working class has the capacity to do this itself? or is it that you think some "condescending savior" (in the words of the "Internationale") is needed?

this can't happen if the working class does not develop the capacity to liberate itself. this means developing the self-condience, organizaational strength, habits and desire for controlling their own organizations and their own struggles. If working people cannot build movements they control now, they can't build a society they control.

the idea of "economism", as used by some Leninists, is a stereotype, a strawman that is alleged to be the view that workers "spontaneously" develop revolutionary concsiousness and the capacities they need to liberate themselves. this is not my view. a "spontaneous" liberation of the working class isn't possible because habits of deference to, or acquiescence in, the authority of the managers and professionals and dominant classes in society is a product of living and working under the control of these elite classes year after year.

what has to happen is a process of self-development within the working class by which ordinary folks acquire a sense of self-confidence, develop habits of running their own struggles and their own organizations themselves, through the spread of collective actions they gain a sense of their potential power to make changes, and this sets the stage for viewing social transformation, revolution, in which they gain power as a possibility. this process of change in consciousness doesn't happen in a purely spontaneous way. it needs to be consciously cultivated.

within the working class there is an activist layer, people who stand up, who speak out, who can be counted on in struggles, who are willing to take on roles like shop steward, organizers, and also people who have some understanding of the nature of the capitalist beast and have ideas about what to replace it with.

but the proper role of the radicals among this activist, organizer, publicist layer is not to gain power for themselves, but to help to develop the skills, self-confidence and understanding of rank and file members of the working class, to development, that is, the level of class consciousness. and of course there are debates about direction, and a role of the revolutionaries is to try to win these debates within the working class, to influence the direction of struggle. but their influence can only be a liberatory influence if their aim is to foster self-management of struggles by working people and thus their confidence in their ability to run their own organizations and struggles.

there is an alternative view of the role of revolutionaries within this activist layer. on this other view their goal should be to gain "leadership" of the movement, because they see their role as getting into positions of authority where they can run things, make the decisions. that view point is vanguardist, it aims to substitute the decision-making of a specific organization of activists for the mass democracy.

This conflict between two different directions played itself out directly in the Russian revolution. The Bolsheviks (and the Mensheviks too) didn't believe in participatory democracy or rank and file workers making their own decisions, but thought in terms of marshalling supprort for this versus that leadership, who would take power and make the decisions. this is why the Mensheviks structured the big soviets in St. Petersburg and Moscow in a top-down way, with power concentrated into the exeuctive committee. and they allowed people of the professional/managerial class, the "intellgentsia" as they were called in Russia, to run for election from factories, that's how they were able to get themselves onto the executives.

i'm not saying these people had bad motives. they were well meaning. it was their conception of how socialism was to be built. in the pre-World War I social-democratic movement, socialism was often conceive of as centralized state management of the economy. so the Bolsheviks conceived of their task as using the influence they had built up in the mass movements (unions, soviets, factory committees) as a trampoline or battering ram, to get themselves into power. their motives were good in the sense they wanted to see humanity progress and they thought this was the way to do it. it's just they were wrong.

so in Nov, 1917 they set up Vesenkha, the central planning body with authority to develop a plan for the whole of the Russian economy -- a program that is inconsistent with workers managing industry. the people on this Vesenkha were appointed from above, they were Bolshevik party stalwarts, trade union bureaucrats, and elite engineers. naturally they were going to want to see their plans carried out, so by the spring of 1918 many leading Bolsheviks were beating the drum for one-man management, that is, appointment of bosses from above.

all of this was prior to the civil war. and it didn't work. the economic crisis continued to get worse. and in the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks were voted out in the soviet elections in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia...only the Bolsheviks refused to recognize the results of the elections. This was the beginning of what Lenin was beginning to call "the dictatorship of the party."

People can talk about how "necessary" things like hiring 30,000 czarist officers to run a conventional hierarchical army was, how it was necessary to militarize labor (something Trotsky first had the opportunity to do on the railways in 1920), and setting up managers over workers, etc. But the key thing is this: What are the consequences? The consequences of these policies pursued by the Bolsheviks, from setting up Vesenkha and Cheka (a party-controlled police) in Nov 1917 on thru the other measures was to empower a new class of managers, party apparatchiks, engineers etc over the working class.

Leninists -- that is, defenders of the Bolshevik legacy -- make the claim that workers "took power" in Russia. Well, how? Thru the soviets? Well the soviets were mostly run in a topdown way and only became local governments. they had nothing to do with the running of production, and the worker delegates in the soviets were largely treated as rubber stamps. the Congress of Soviets? to bolster their position against the peasant-based Left SRs, the Bolsheviks in early 1918 stacked the Congress with labor bureaucrats from the Bolshevik party-controled unions, which were very top-down, centralized organizations. the Congress and its executive commitee were subsequently treated also like rubber stamps. the Council of People's Commissars increasingly began to rule by decree during the first half of 1918.

so where was this "worker power"?

I'm am NOT saying that no governing structure was needed, I'm not saying it wasn't necessary to have an army to defend the revolution, i'm not saying coordination and planning were not needed. but workers and peasants in Russia posed other ways of doing these things: in Nov 1917 the Regional Soviet of Factory Committees of St. Petersburg proposed invoking a national congress of factory committees to plan the national economy from below, by the workers. The Bolsheviks blocked the formation of that congress.

in early 1918 there was a 300,000 man worker militia and proposals for using guerrilla armies and mlitias to defend the revolution. the success of the Makhnovist revolutionary army in eastern Ukraine against the whites shows the possibilities there.

we also know very well what the consequences were of the Leninist program put into practive: the creation of a new class system with workers still dominated and exploited by bosses.

[KC]

they call me names

That's because it's hopeless to debate you because you're so set in what you believe that you won't even consider a critical analysis of your beliefs. That makes me not care what you say, and ultimately not to take you seriously and just to make fun of you, because you're an idiot for doing such a thing.


the basic issue is this: do you see the aim as being the liberation of the working class from the system of class domination and exploitation? do you believe that the working class has the capacity to do this itself? or is it that you think some "condescending savior" (in the words of the "Internationale") is needed?

I don't believe like you do that class consciousness comes spontaneously and I don't believe like you do that proletarians can become communists merely through participation in the class struggle. That's what communists are for.


the idea of "economism", as used by some Leninists, is a stereotype, a strawman that is alleged to be the view that workers "spontaneously" develop revolutionary concsiousness and the capacities they need to liberate themselves. this is not my view. a "spontaneous" liberation of the working class isn't possible because habits of deference to, or acquiescence in, the authority of the managers and professionals and dominant classes in society is a product of living and working under the control of these elite classes year after year.

what has to happen is a process of self-development within the working class by which ordinary folks acquire a sense of self-confidence, develop habits of running their own struggles and their own organizations themselves, through the spread of collective actions they gain a sense of their potential power to make changes, and this sets the stage for viewing social transformation, revolution, in which they gain power as a possibility. this process of change in consciousness doesn't happen in a purely spontaneous way. it needs to be consciously cultivated.

What you're talking about is either spontanaeity, i.e. the ability of the proletariat to develop class consciousness by itself simply through participation in the class struggle, or an agreement with my belief that the proletariat can only become class conscious through the introduction of communism by communists (which is also what Lenin believed). So are you an economist or do you agree with myself and Lenin?


within the working class there is an activist layer, people who stand up, who speak out, who can be counted on in struggles, who are willing to take on roles like shop steward, organizers, and also people who have some understanding of the nature of the capitalist beast and have ideas about what to replace it with.

i.e. the vanguard.


but the proper role of the radicals among this activist, organizer, publicist layer is not to gain power for themselves, but to help to develop the skills, self-confidence and understanding of rank and file members of the working class, to development, that is, the level of class consciousness. and of course there are debates about direction, and a role of the revolutionaries is to try to win these debates within the working class, to influence the direction of struggle. but their influence can only be a liberatory influence if their aim is to foster self-management of struggles by working people and thus their confidence in their ability to run their own organizations and struggles.

You mean this:

"They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole...

...The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Ch. 2


there is an alternative view of the role of revolutionaries within this activist layer. on this other view their goal should be to gain "leadership" of the movement

These people are already leaders, as you have shown earlier.


because they see their role as getting into positions of authority where they can run things, make the decisions. that view point is vanguardist, it aims to substitute the decision-making of a specific organization of activists for the mass democracy.

Interesting that you call that "vanguardist" yet you yourself agree with the theory of the vanguard, as shown above.


The Bolsheviks (and the Mensheviks too) didn't believe in participatory democracy or rank and file workers making their own decisions

So there was never democracy within the Bolshevik Party? That's incorrect.

[syndicat]

That's because it's hopeless to debate you because you're so set in what you believe that you won't even consider a critical analysis of your beliefs.

wrong. you first have to provide a critical analysis...and that means one that isn't just a regurgitation of your formulaic dogma...as you do in this post.


I don't believe like you do that class consciousness comes spontaneously and I don't believe like you do that proletarians can become communists merely through participation in the class struggle. That's what communists are for.

as i pointed out in the post that preceded yours (but which you appear to have not read with comprehension), this is a strawman fallacy. do you know what that is? that means you concoct a stereotype in your head, and then poke holes in that, which is completely irrelevant since the streeotype isn't what I'm actually saying. to respond to my argument you have to pay actual attention to what i write. that's what "critical analysis" means.

me: "because they see their role as getting into positions of authority where they can run things, make the decisions. that view point is vanguardist, it aims to substitute the decision-making of a specific organization of activists for the mass democracy."



Interesting that you call that "vanguardist" yet you yourself agree with the theory of the vanguard, as shown above.

again, you're not paying attention. i went to quite a bit of trouble to lay out TWO different roles that the "vanguard" could play. they could work to develop consciousness, skills, understanding, self-confidence of ordinary workers, and defend and encourage practices of rank and file self-management of organizations, practices of participatory democracy. that's the LIBERTARIAN view of the role of the vanguard.

alternatively, the vanguard to work to "gain leadership of struggles", that is, empower itself, with the aim of getting itself -- it's party -- into control of a state. What's interesting here is that you don't reject the second view of the role of the "vanguard." but this second conception is substitutionist, it aims to create what will be a hierarchical power over the working class, not the self-management of industry and public affairs by the working class itself. your confusion comes out in your lack of comprehension of what participatory democracy means:

me: "The Bolsheviks (and the Mensheviks too) didn't believe in participatory democracy or rank and file workers making their own decisions"



So there was never democracy within the Bolshevik Party? That's incorrect.

I wasn't talking about democracy in the Bolshevik party. I was talking about participation of the working class in general in the struggle, in their organizations, where particiatory democracy was used to control these organizations. I've described how the soviets that the Mensheviks set up in Feb. 1917 were topdown, lacking in real power for the elected worker delegates, and how this was taken over by the Bolsheviks in the fall of 1917, without changing the structure. so it's a question of how the working class itself can control the society. this can't happen if they don't make the decisions, and that presupposes participatory democracy.

the existence of internal democracy within the Bolshevik party doesn't tell us about the power of the working class, which isn't empowered when a small minority of the population, called a party, set up a party dictatorship. and with the other political tendencies outlawed after 1918, it was inevitable that internal democracy would be abolished in the party, too, as happened in 1921.

the point is that the Bolsheviks' view was that the party should run things, by getting its cadres into control of hierarchies...running a top down army, appointing planners and managers who preside over workers in production, and so on.

[KC]

How about responding to the rest of my post?

[syndicat]

i responded only to those points that were relevant to responding to the previous post i wrote, which you were seemingly responding to. if you respond to what I say, then a discussion can continue....

[KC]

I've shown that you hold the same conception of the vanguard and class consciousness as Lenin. I want to hear you respond to that.

[syndicat]

What you mean is that Leninists and I agree that there IS a vanguard. In the early 20th century anarchists and Leninists didn't disagree on that point.

As I said, the issue is the ROLE that is envisioned for the vanguard to play. That is where the fundmantal problem of the Leninist "vanguard party" conception comes in.

I proposed that the vanguard -- the layer of activists, organizers and publicists within the working class, who have ideas about the possibility of a society beyond capitalism, which inspires them -- should focus on assisting the development of the skills, self-confidence, collective self-organization of the working class. This means helping, thru things like training, increasing numbers of ordinary folks to acquire the abilities needed to participate as an active factor in running their own organizations.

in the case of a union this would include things like how to chair a meeting, how to negotiate with employers, what the labor laws are, how to deal with the media, building a shop stewards council, and so on. it's necessary that the rank and file develop the habits and skills to not depend on leaders, to acquire the capacity for self-management of their own organizations. a revolutionary libertarian workers organization will also have to win the arguments within the working class on direction, and against reformist or authoritarian ideas.

but the aim of the vanguard should not be to gain power for itself. it's not a question of putting forward the idea that their party, the vanguard party, should be put in charge of running things. that idea is substitutionist. substituting the decision-making of a "vanguard" for the mass of working people is vanguardist.

[Lenin II]

the basic issue is this: do you see the aim as being the liberation of the working class from the system of class domination and exploitation?
Why, of course. That’s what led me to this site.

do you believe that the working class has the capacity to do this itself?
With strong leadership.

or is it that you think some "condescending savior" (in the words of the "Internationale") is needed?
Saviors are not always condescending.

this can't happen if the working class does not develop the capacity to liberate itself.this means developing the self-condience, organizaational strength, habits and desire for controlling their own organizations and their own struggles. If working people cannot build movements they control now, they can't build a society they control.
I know. That’s what the Communist saviors are for--to show the workers that there is a better way.

the idea of "economism", as used by some Leninists, is a stereotype, a strawman that is alleged to be the view that workers "spontaneously" develop revolutionary concsiousness and the capacities they need to liberate themselves. this is not my view. a "spontaneous" liberation of the working class isn't possible because habits of deference to, or acquiescence in, the authority of the managers and professionals and dominant classes in society is a product of living and working under the control of these elite classes year after year.

what has to happen is a process of self-development within the working class by which ordinary folks acquire a sense of self-confidence, develop habits of running their own struggles and their own organizations themselves, through the spread of collective actions they gain a sense of their potential power to make changes, and this sets the stage for viewing social transformation, revolution, in which they gain power as a possibility. this process of change in consciousness doesn't happen in a purely spontaneous way. it needs to be consciously cultivated.
Agreed. That's why we need strong leadership to manage things after the Revolution. Otherwise things will fall apart before the new society has the opportunity to function properly and everyhing will go back to the way it was before.

within the working class there is an activist layer, people who stand up, who speak out, who can be counted on in struggles, who are willing to take on roles like shop steward, organizers, and also people who have some understanding of the nature of the capitalist beast and have ideas about what to replace it with.
but the proper role of the radicals among this activist, organizer, publicist layer is not to gain power for themselves, but to help to develop the skills, self-confidence and understanding of rank and file members of the working class, to development, that is, the level of class consciousness. and of course there are debates about direction, and a role of the revolutionaries is to try to win these debates within the working class, to influence the direction of struggle. but their influence can only be a liberatory influence if their aim is to foster self-management of struggles by working people and thus their confidence in their ability to run their own organizations and struggles.
Sorry, dude. The whole "leading by example" thing doesn't work. History has shown that. The only way to change things is to acquire power--it is the only language the current political climate understands.

there is an alternative view of the role of revolutionaries within this activist layer. on this other view their goal should be to gain "leadership" of the movement, because they see their role as getting into positions of authority where they can run things, make the decisions. that view point is vanguardist, it aims to substitute the decision-making of a specific organization of activists for the mass democracy.
Why shouldn't they put themselves in a position to make decisions? If they are the visionaries of the new society, and they have the peoples' support, then by all means they should be leaders and guides. However, I do agree that they should not have absolute power, but I would like to point out that is not what Leninist-Marxism is about. It IS a mass democracy. You make it sound as if every attempt to form a Leninist society will end up being a Stalinist dictatorship that betrays the principles upon which it was founded. This is simply not true.

[KC]

What you mean is that Leninists and I agree that there IS a vanguard.

I said Lenin, not "Leninists".


I proposed that the vanguard -- the layer of activists, organizers and publicists within the working class, who have ideas about the possibility of a society beyond capitalism, which inspires them -- should focus on assisting the development of the skills, self-confidence, collective self-organization of the working class. This means helping, thru things like training, increasing numbers of ordinary folks to acquire the abilities needed to participate as an active factor in running their own organizations.

How do you think the RSDLP was formed? Magic?


in the case of a union this would include things like how to chair a meeting, how to negotiate with employers, what the labor laws are, how to deal with the media, building a shop stewards council, and so on. it's necessary that the rank and file develop the habits and skills to not depend on leaders, to acquire the capacity for self-management of their own organizations. a revolutionary libertarian workers organization will also have to win the arguments within the working class on direction, and against reformist or authoritarian ideas.

Yep. That's what Marx, Lenin and myself believe.


but the aim of the vanguard should not be to gain power for itself.

The vanguard can't gain power "for itself".


it's not a question of putting forward the idea that their party, the vanguard party, should be put in charge of running things. that idea is substitutionist. substituting the decision-making of a "vanguard" for the mass of working people is vanguardist.

First, the vanguard party is the party chosen by the proletariat to lead it through proletarian revolution to socialism and eventually communism. Second, because of that the vanguard party is a mass party that constitutes the majority of the proletariat and represents the interests of the class as a whole. The entire idea of the vanguard party is so the working class can liberate itself through organization and action.

You seem to understand the concept of the vanguard, and that it is the most advanced section of the proletariat, and you seem to understand the general role of the vanguard, i.e. to train proletarians and to develop class consciousness within them, but you seem to be hung up on the idea of a "vanguard party". It seems that when you come to this concept you throw all hitherto understood knowledge of the vanguard out the window and treat it as something completely different than what you yourself has asserted it to be just a little while earlier.

The vanguard party is a party of the vanguard that becomes a mass party through gaining membership within the proletariat due to proletarians choosing that party to lead the struggle, exactly like how the vanguard leads the proletariat, which you agreed upon earlier. This doesn't "substitute" the vanguard party for the working class, as more members of the working class become members of the vanguard and participate in the class struggle and eventual proletarian revolution through the party organization. So what does this mean? It means that through organization and agitation a vanguard party becomes the vanguard party through majority support by the proletariat through increases in membership and an overall increase in the size of the vanguard itself. The vanguard can't "substitute" the proletariat because the vanguard is the proletariat and represents the interests of the proletariat.

[syndicat]

AndrewG:
Why shouldn't they put themselves in a position to make decisions? If they are the visionaries of the new society, and they have the peoples' support, then by all means they should be leaders and guides.

Your viewpoint here is inconsistent with the liberation of the working class from subjugation and exploitation. That's because creating a new structure of hierarchy in which the vanguard party makes the decisions generates a new class system. The system of central state planning instituted in Russia by the Bolsheviks in Nov. 1917 implies that there will be bosses appointed from above over workers, to make sure the "leaders" plans are carried out.

What you end up with is an economic system in which a coordinator class -- the class of managers and top professionals -- is the dominating class.

The notion of "Communist saviors" is inherenty condescending because it assumes that the working class cannot run society and its own social change project, but needs an educated elite to make decisions for it. This means you don't really believe in working class SELF-liberation.

Z:
How do you think the RSDLP was formed?

Lenin insisted that workers who were recruited and trained would then become paid party functionaries. They had a conception of the party cadres as managers of the process of social change, as the people who will end up as managers of the society -- in industry, army, government. This is a recipe for a new class system, a system in which a professional/managerial class is on top and workers are subordinated to them.

The idea that the vanguard's "superior theory" is supposed to merit them running things and making the decisions is a form of meriocracy, like the ideology of the professional/managerial class, who think they should be making the decisions, and workers subordinate to them, because the professionals and managers have credentials, college degrees, expertise.

You two, Z and AndrewG, believe this also, it's just that its a different form of expertise you emphasize.

This is a type of elitism that is particularly attractive to students because it tells them their superior education entitles them to "leadership" of society.

[Lenin II]

Your viewpoint here is inconsistent with the liberation of the working class from subjugation and exploitation. That's because creating a new structure of hierarchy in which the vanguard party makes the decisions generates a new class system.
Granted. It does. But that's the point--we cannot jump from capitalism to pure communism immediatly after the revolution. A transitional period must come first. The new state and class system set up by the workers will gradually wither away as the society becomes self-sufficient.

The system of central state planning instituted in Russia by the Bolsheviks in Nov. 1917 implies that there will be bosses appointed from above over workers, to make sure the "leaders" plans are carried out.
Just because the Bolsheviks did it that way does not mean we have to. Even if the revolution is led by dogmatic Leninist-Marxists, there is no reason to believe that they will follow every action taken by the original Bolsheviks verbatim.

What you end up with is an economic system in which a coordinator class -- the class of managers and top professionals -- is the dominating class.
Not neccesarily. We may not end up with that. Most likely it will not be structured that way, as it is almost identical to the system we are fighting against.

The notion of "Communist saviors" is inherenty condescending because it assumes that the working class cannot run society and its own social change project, but needs an educated elite to make decisions for it. This means you don't really believe in working class SELF-liberation.
The workers CAN run thier own society and they will. But they cannot take this burden right away, fresh on the heels of a revolution that would leave the country in pieces. Organization is needed in order to circumvent the utter chaos that might follow, which would further hurt the working class. Also, you seem to be assuming we will tke the monarchist approach and have ONE supreme leader of any given factory or means of production, as opposed to having labor unions who run things. Organization, by itself, is not automatically a capitalist class system.

[Rawthentic]

Just because the Bolsheviks did it that way does not mean we have to. Even if the revolution is led by dogmatic Leninist-Marxists, there is no reason to believe that they will follow every action taken by the original Bolsheviks verbatim.
It cannot be made as the Bolsheviks did; they were revolutionaries for their time, and material conditions are radically different. And it was not led by "dogmatic Leninist-Marxists", thats anarchist rhetoric.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ By suggesting that labour unions should run things, you sound eerily reformist (as opposed to workers' councils). :(

[syndicat]

what do you mean by a "workers' council"? this phrase has been used to mean a variety of things.

I'm not sure who you are responding to. if unions expropriate the capitalists and take over running of an industry, then, as I see it, they cease to be a union. when the Spanish unions expropriated the capitalists in 1936, they created "industrial federations", based on worker assemblies, to manage the industries.

i think one should distinguish between unions, as organizations of workers in struggle, and an organization of workers' self-management of an industry. nonetheless, workers need to have mass organizations through which they fight for the change, and bring about their own collective management of industry and society. i think this presupposes the existence of a revolutionary labor movement.

[Rawthentic]

Unions today are agents of capital and bureaucratic methods. I suppose they are where the workers can gain a "trade-union consciousness", but not a revolutionary one.

[KC]

Unions are the most crucial element of the class struggle within many countries today and because of this the focus of communists should be on joining these unions and leading proletarians to class consciousness.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:40 am

Just because the Bolsheviks did it that way does not mean we have to. Even if the revolution is led by dogmatic Leninist-Marxists, there is no reason to believe that they will follow every action taken by the original Bolsheviks verbatim.
It cannot be made as the Bolsheviks did; they were revolutionaries for their time, and material conditions are radically different. And it was not led by "dogmatic Leninist-Marxists", thats anarchist rhetoric.
Anarchist rhetoric? I'm Leninist-Marxist.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:44 am
Anarchist rhetoric? I'm Leninist-Marxist.
:huh: You mean Marxist-Leninist. And what of Lenin or Marx's works have you actually read? Because from what I've seen so far of your posts you don't have a real grasp of either.

[syndicat]

Unions today are agents of capital and bureaucratic methods. I suppose they are where the workers can gain a "trade-union consciousness", but not a revolutionary one.

This is simplistic ultra-left rhetoric. Unionism comes in a broad range of forms, and its character depends on the level of struggle and consciousness within the working class. In the USA local union branches are mostly reasonably democratic, and many don't have any fulltime officials. Often there are ongoing struggles by rank and file oppositionists to change unions, to make them more controlled by the workers and more effective fighting instruments. It is an important part of building a base for our ideas to be involved in this process. It appears you have no program for this.

The working class cannot liberate itself without its own mass organizations that it controls, and the mass organizations at the point of production are critical because liberation will involve the taking over the runnning of production by workers, and because workers have potentially the power to shutdown production, and thus can bring collective power to bear in fights in the society.

A new kind of labor movement, not top down and dominated by officials engaged in routinized bargaining, but workplace based unionism, built on solidarity and involvement of the members. The experience of growing collective power and control over struggles is necessary to the development of working class consciousness.

[The Grey Blur]

This is simplistic ultra-left rhetoric.
:D

Pot, kettle...

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:09 pm

Unions today are agents of capital and bureaucratic methods. I suppose they are where the workers can gain a "trade-union consciousness", but not a revolutionary one.

This is simplistic ultra-left rhetoric. Unionism comes in a broad range of forms, and its character depends on the level of struggle and consciousness within the working class. In the USA local union branches are mostly reasonably democratic, and many don't have any fulltime officials. Often there are ongoing struggles by rank and file oppositionists to change unions, to make them more controlled by the workers and more effective fighting instruments. It is an important part of building a base for our ideas to be involved in this process. It appears you have no program for this.

The working class cannot liberate itself without its own mass organizations that it controls, and the mass organizations at the point of production are critical because liberation will involve the taking over the runnning of production by workers, and because workers have potentially the power to shutdown production, and thus can bring collective power to bear in fights in the society.

A new kind of labor movement, not top down and dominated by officials engaged in routinized bargaining, but workplace based unionism, built on solidarity and involvement of the members. The experience of growing collective power and control over struggles is necessary to the development of working class consciousness.
Syndicat, I’m guessing you’re a syndicalist, but you do have a good point about how trade unions, even the social-democratic ones of today, can be used to achieve even revolutionary goals. That’s how it is in Norway. The social democrats are reactionary as hell, but the national labour union has several communists and communist sympathizers. Through those, they have managed to prevent Norway from becoming as anti-Cuban as the EU nations.

[syndicat]

me: "Your viewpoint here is inconsistent with the liberation of the working class from subjugation and exploitation. That's because creating a new structure of hierarchy in which the vanguard party makes the decisions generates a new class system.
AndrewG:

Granted. It does. But that's the point--we cannot jump from capitalism to pure communism immediatly after the revolution. A transitional period must come first. The new state and class system set up by the workers will gradually wither away as the society becomes self-sufficient.

It is actually un-Marxist to assume that an elite will voluntarily give up its power, that it will not try to find excuses to entrench its position over time. If one assumes that "because the leaders are socialists" this won't happen, one is assuming that it is ideas -- in the heads of the leaders -- that rule rather than actual material power relations. This is an idealist error. The workers must gain power over social production and power in the society in the revolutionary process, or they will be defeated. They will continue to be a subordinated class. People who gain power at the outset, whether they call themselves "communists" or what, will simply interpet that in a way that justifies them retaining power. People re-interpret their ideas to justify doing what they want to do.

[The Grey Blur]

the workers do control means of production

they elect officials on a democratic basis with the right to recall and worker's wage

sorry, broken finger

[Rawthentic]

It is actually un-Marxist to assume that an elite will voluntarily give up its power, that it will not try to find excuses to entrench its position over time. If one assumes that "because the leaders are socialists" this won't happen, one is assuming that it is ideas -- in the heads of the leaders -- that rule rather than actual material power relations. This is an idealist error. The workers must gain power over social production and power in the society in the revolutionary process, or they will be defeated. They will continue to be a subordinated class. People who gain power at the outset, whether they call themselves "communists" or what, will simply interpet that in a way that justifies them retaining power. People re-interpret their ideas to justify doing what they want to do.
What the fuck? Did you read what Andrew wrote?:

The new state and class system set up by the workers will gradually wither away as the society becomes self-sufficient.

The state, as the transitional period, writhers away as class antagonisms are eliminated, and the threat of counterrevolution is gone, thus eliminating the basis for a state. The working class must seize political power, because it is the state that is the "crux" of the capitalist system. Since you are openly economist and reject the political struggle, I can see why syndicalism has never achieved working class power.