Question on Leninism

[Morello]

I am a Socialist. But I believe the only way to acheive a Socialist Revolution is through Warfare. Whether it be Guerilla, Organized, or any other Revolutionary Warfare, I think negotiation just can't change a Government. Does that mean I am a Socialist Leninist? Or do Leninists believe in a different system that takes place after revolution?

[gilhyle]

Leninists believe that the bourgeoisie will resist the smashing of the capitalist state by the working class and are willing to do what is necessary to defend the State. But they would not say that in each and every country 'warfare' is the only way to install workers power.

[Janus]

Does that mean I am a Socialist Leninist?
Recognizing the necessity of a revolution does not make one a Leninist.


Or do Leninists believe in a different system that takes place after revolution?
Leninists seek to establish a worker's state following the revolution and ultimately a communist society. However, they seek to achieve this through a vanguard party which will organize, guide, and lead the working class to revolution.

Revleft dictionary (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

We have a search function for a reason:
Leninism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63484&hl=Leninism)
Leninism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62034&hl=Leninism)
Leninism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60557&hl=Leninism)

[Morello]

Alright, thanks. I just thought Leninism was believing that violence was the only way to enstate revolution.

[gilhyle]

Thats not entirely wrong. I repeat : Leninists believe the ruling class will almost certainly resist, if for example a revolutionary party was elected within the capitalist electoral system of if an alternative state system based on soviets started taking over during a general strike or something like that......violence is almost inevitable.

But Leninists also believe there are a range of tools a revolutionary party can use that can all contribute to taking power (and winning benefits for workers along the way) - standing in elections, protests, strikes, etc.

What Leninists do not believe is that JUST using violence to seize the State is worthwhile. Leninists call this Blanquiism, after a radical 19th century French man Blanqui who conspired all his life to seize the state by violence. Violence must be used as part of mobilising the class to seize power.

THis is an important problem. If, for example, there are mass protests going on and a small group decide to turn to violence, one consequence can be that the mass of workers are driven off the street because of the violent conflicts between the forces of the capitalist state and the violent revolutionary minority. This is not a good thing if it demobilisies workers who would otherwise be out organising and protesting. Violence must be used carefully to try to do maximum damage to the ruling class but minimum damage to the self-organisation of the working class.

A lot of the debates about what happened in the USSR between 1917-23 are about whether Lenin's party got that balance right. In fighting the Civil War did they, maybe, go too far inexecutign hostages, arresting dissident anarchists, suppressing dissident papers, developing the secret police. In my view they did not go too far and many Leninists take a tough line on the need to engage in violence in the face of counter-revolution....tending towards the view that once you have state power you should do what is necessary to protect it and try to fix problems it creates within the class afterwards.

WHile Leninists tend to be very willing to use violence to defend a workers state, they tend to be slow to use violence in the period before the seizure of the State. Lenin used violence to get funds for the Party (robberies) before he took power but he had no involvement in any 'terrorist' actions.

One area where Leninists often advocate the use of violence within capitalist society is in fighting fascism. The defiining feature of fascism is that it tries to win political power and influence on thestreets rather than just through the ballot box (as most capitalist parties are content to do - leaving violence to the thugs of the State [the 'police' and 'army']). Leninists (but not only Leninists) argue that fascists must be resisted violently on the street by the organising anti-fascist action and encouraging communities to organise against fascist intimidation. (Some so-called Leninists avoid this, but not most)

Leninists have a poor record on organising for defence squads for picket lines. Some are strong on this point, some worry that there is no point in escalating the violence since workers will abandon the picket line.

[Vargha Poralli]

Violence is a thing that must be never be worshiped or be loathed.

There was a political group in Russia in 1860's called Naronya Volaya (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/e.htm#peoples-will) which belived that a revolutionary change could be bropught up in Russia by usage of violence against Russian autocracy and Nobility. They killed many aristocrats and most important assaination was that of Czar Alexander 2.

But the problem with their theory is that it made masses merely a spectator of events not an active participator. This led to the downfall of them.

Lenin and early Russian Marxists like Plekhanov criticed them a lot in early days.

Violence as a tactic must be used with great caution if at all a revolutionary group need to use it. It is like fighting with an Sword without handle. Unnecessary usage of it surely will be unproductive as the repression that follows its usage will do its best to separate the masses from revolutionaries.

[KC]

I am a Socialist. But I believe the only way to acheive a Socialist Revolution is through Warfare. Whether it be Guerilla, Organized, or any other Revolutionary Warfare, I think negotiation just can't change a Government. Does that mean I am a Socialist Leninist? Or do Leninists believe in a different system that takes place after revolution?

Recognizing the necessity of the revolution isn't a Leninist trait; it's a Marxist one. In fact, most of what everyone's said has been true of Marxists in general.



But Leninists also believe there are a range of tools a revolutionary party can use that can all contribute to taking power (and winning benefits for workers along the way) - standing in elections, protests, strikes, etc.

What Leninists do not believe is that JUST using violence to seize the State is worthwhile. Leninists call this Blanquiism, after a radical 19th century French man Blanqui who conspired all his life to seize the state by violence. Violence must be used as part of mobilising the class to seize power.


That's a general Marxist trait and not just a Leninist one.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 23, 2007 04:36 pm


That's a general Marxist trait and not just a Leninist one.
If you allow that 'Marxists' dont always agree with Karl Marx, I would disagree with you - just as a scientific observation. Many so-called 'Marxists' either believe that the bourgeoisie will not fight, or just dont consider the issue. It really is the Leninist (including Trotskyist) and 'left communist traditions within Marxism that take the view I have outlined.

Even then a group like 'Militant' in the UK (from the Trotskyist tradition) used to believe (basing themselves on Marx's comment that maybe one or two capitalist countries could reach socialism without a violent revolution) that the main imperialist powers could move to socialism on an electoral basis.

But Lenins writings on this issue are very clear and useful, although spread all over the place. Certainly he followed Engels very closely in his view and the link to Marx is there for that reason. But not all Marxists are in that camp.