Leninism vs. Marxism [Archive]

sc4r

27th July 2003, 13:51

You can get really up hung up on worrying about what the exact relationship of differing ideologies is to each other and in particular whether one is 'really' a type of another (an example : is whether 'state capitalism' is 'really' socialism, or 'really' capitalism, and whether the USST did or didnt 'really' practise it').

The more useful way to look at is as you seem to be doing :

1) All ideologies are themselves. They have the advantages and disadvantages implied by the totality of what they themselves are. Whether (for another example) stalinism is 'marxist' or not is totally irellevant. What matter is what stalinism would lead to (would it free people, would it make them happier, would it make them wealthier, would this apply to all people or only some, who, if someone would suffer then how much) together, fairly crucially, with how plausible it is that the ideology would actually work as it says it will (another way of looking at that question is to say 'how many assumption need to be made for it to work, and how large are those assumptions).

2) When assesing actual societies you will never find one that really conforms exactly to any theoretical ideology, unless the ideology is so loosely defined that it depends for sucess on the exact way that it is operated. Or if the ideology is in fact merely the name of the society anyway.

3) Only if you do not actually know very much about the detail of a particular ideology is it of any real use to ask what class of ideologies it belongs to. This will give you some inkling of its probable strong and weak points. But remember ONLY PROBABLY and ONLY APPROXIMATELY.

4) In fact You'll nearly always find loads of dissenting opinions (some of them very dramatically different) about how to classify any individual ideology anyway. Making it even less purposeful to evaluate it based on clasification.

Not to put too fine a point on it people who routinely denounce ideologies 'because they are [insert class of your choice]' are usually engaging in Dogma, not understanding or fair crititicism. Its a very fair gamble that they dont understand all that much about what they are criticising or even really why.

To directly answer your question - Leninism is usually considered a branch of Marxism (which is such a broad ideology itself that it is the 'father' to dozens if not hundreds of 'child' ideologies. Not all of which by any means can be considered 'good' probably).

Marxism is also (again like quite a lot of 'ideologies') used to refer sometimes to a movement, which would impose quite a few different socio-economic conditions in various societies at various points of development. Many of which could be considered ideologies themselves independently.

Certainly Leninism is derived from Marxism and has many features of doctrine in common. Its most dramatically obvious distinguishing feature is the presence of a 'vanguard party' to usher in socialism. The vanguard is often thought of as serving to educate relatively uneducated (though initially keen) population. This was, of course particulary relevant iin Russia (and later China) where support originally came not from the industrial proletariat Marx had seen as its main popular supporters but from an agricultural peasantry who had directly before been living under feudal rule not Capitalism.

In practise the vanguard also serves as a benevolent oligarchy for an interim period. Which is where one of the biggest risks in Lenininsm comes from - Its all too easy to see how the oligarchy may become a permanent feature and develop totalitarian characteristics.

If you want to know if a system is Marxist ask 'does it allow private ownership in the means of production ?'. If the answer is No then its probably fair to class an ideology as Marxist (but it does not say whether it is actually benevolent or viable). Their will be some who object to this. They are the sort who claim that 'Only their version of Marxism is the true one'. My advice is to try and ignore such types; they are arguing about semantics not reality.

best wishes.

P.S. In case you didnt guess I did not read your initial post properly at first. So absolutely tons of the above is irrelevant to you. Sorry about that :)

(Edited by sc4r at 2:15 pm on July 27, 2003)

redstar2000

27th July 2003, 16:18

The defining work of Leninism is What is to be Done? written at the beginning of the 20th century. When Lenin wrote this small book, he was a "Kautskyist"...that is, a supporter of Karl Kautsky's German Social Democracy, heir to Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel and, of course, Engels himself.

It was Lenin's inspiration (if that's the right word) to recognize that the parliamentary strategy of social democracy "would not work" in the autocracy that was the Russian Empire.

Probably borrowing from earlier Russian revolutionary traditions (nihilists?), Lenin developed the concept of a "vanguard party of professional revolutionaries" that would operate underground to organize resistance to the old regime.

Naturally, such a party had to be highly disciplined and at least quasi-militarized. It also had to consist of people who already had considerable political sophistication--in the Russia of that era, that meant mostly middle-class intellectuals (Stalin was very much an exception to the usual class background of the early Bolsheviks).

It was never expected, in those long-ago days, that Russia would have a proletarian revolution. All trends of Russian revolutionary thought more or less expected a capitalist revolution (Engels was predicting it back in the 1870s).

Thus, Lenin never thought that his "vanguard party" was anything more than the nucleus of an eventual mass Social Democratic party that would take its place among like-minded parties in Europe after the Czarist autocracy was overthrown and Russia became a bourgeois republic.

And it's worth noting that although there was not a great deal of internal democracy in the early Bolshevik party, there was some. In particular, there was quite a bit of "freedom of discussion"...Lenin may have made most of the substantive decisions, but people openly criticized him in the party press and did so without any kind of "punishment".

History might well suggest that it was Lenin's success that was his undoing. The Bolshevik apparatus was remarkably well-suited for revolutionary struggle under Russian conditions and did win a substantial degree of working-class support in the new industrial complexes in Russia, particulary in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

When the Bolsheviks took a position of uncompromising opposition to World War I and the war went badly for the Russian aristocracy, the Bolsheviks looked stronger and stronger. When the mass revolution took place in February 1917, the Bolsheviks were the only political party with a clear record of opposition to "all the old shit".

By the summer of 1917, it must have dawned on Lenin and many other Bolsheviks that the new Russian bourgeois ruling class was extraordinarily weak...that it might very well be possible to overthrow them and proceed to a socialist revolution. If there were socialist revolutions in the rest of Europe (many thought that inevitable), then Russian backwardness could be overcome and it might be possible to "skip the capitalist stage" in Russia altogether...or, at least, minimize its intensity and duration.

Most of what we now think of as Leninism derives from those optimistic conclusions. The "vanguard party" went on to rule "on behalf of the workers"; the lines between socialism and state capitalism essentially vanished; much of "the old shit" was revived; etc., etc.

Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao all developed their own versions of Leninism, of course, and whenever you hear a group call themselves "Marxist-Leninist", it usually means a little bit of Marx, a little more of Lenin, and a generous chunk of one or more of those three guys.

By now, the variants of Leninism have theoretically exhausted themselves...there's really been nothing of any significance since Mao. (Note that there is no "Marxism-Castroism" for example.)

In backward countries (peasant revolutions), Maoism is still a vital force. It "works" in those material conditions. But in the "first world", almost all Leninist parties have become reformist--they either support "left" bourgeois parties or run their own candidates in bourgeois elections...proposing an "orderly" and "gradual" transition to "socialism". Internally, they resemble a church far more than they resemble Lenin's early Bolshevik party...dissent is rare and usually punished by excommunication (expulsion).

Those who want to mount a revolutionary opposition to capitalism in the "first world" have returned to Marx and what he really meant by proletarian revolution and the replacement of capitalism by communism.

To be "just a" Marxist or communist these days still sounds strange to people's ears. The shadow of Lenin and his heirs is a long one and we still have considerable distance to travel before we get out of it altogether.

But progress is being made.

:cool:

Morpheus

28th July 2003, 02:49

All trends of Russian revolutionary thought more or less expected a capitalist revolution

Not really. Many Social Revolutionaries, the Populists and most anarchists believed it would be possible to go straight to socialism without going through capitalism.

When the mass revolution took place in February 1917, the Bolsheviks were the only political party with a clear record of opposition to "all the old shit".

The SR Marximalists had such a record. So did the anarchists, but that obviously isn't a political party.

Those who want to mount a revolutionary opposition to capitalism in the "first world" have returned to Marx and what he really meant by proletarian revolution and the replacement of capitalism by communism.

Actually most today are turning to anarchism, not your version of Marxism.

American Kid

28th July 2003, 03:37

The main difference, I think, is application.

Leninism seems to be more hands-on and practical. It advocates action. It entails the creation of a cadre of skilled, bright people (the professional revolutionaries) to come together, allign themselves with the workers of the industrial working class, and then actively initiate an insurrection.

Leninism also entails physical force as a necessary means to initiate revolution. (lessons observed from 1905 Lenin was keen to not forget.)

Marxism is more a scientific theory, based on historical evidence, devised with the help of Engels, making the claim that eventually, capitalism will be overthrown by the exploited working class with a more egalitarian, fair, equal society taking it's place.

support originally came not from the industrial proletariat Marx had seen as its main popular supporters but from an agricultural peasantry who had directly before been living under feudal rule not Capitalism.

Actually it was the industrial workers in Moscow (it was called something different then; Petrogard, I think...) who in the end were the deciding factor in the Bolsheviks taking power.

The Bolsheviks kept close ties to the rabble-rousers who took to the streets with bricks and baseball bats. The Mensheviks were the more "classier" branch of the Soviets; they still kept contacts with the high-society, bourgesie members of the upper-class; they were considered slightly more "respectable" as a result. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were the guys who stood to their guns.

And eventually it was the guys with the bricks and baseball bats who won out.

In the late-19th century, the Populists, who were a bunch of wacked-out, hippie by-products of the intellegentsia, literally took it upon themselves to venture out into the countryside and make "contact" with the peasantry. Sort of like Christan fundamentalists. They attempted to turn on the peasants to the fact they were being whored out and should work to better themselves and help with a revolution.

The peasantry would react nine times out of ten by turning them into the authorities.

I mean, think about it. What would you do?

Again, in the end, it came down to bricks and baseball bats.

Maybe not baseball bats. But you get the idea.

-ak

redstar2000

28th July 2003, 04:13

Many Social Revolutionaries, the Populists and most anarchists believed it would be possible to go straight to socialism without going through capitalism.

My impression is that the populists were all but extinct by 1900 when Lenin's book was written. The Social Revolutionaries, being peasant-based, may well have had such notions...but would never have implemented them. The peasantry have always regarded a "free market" in agricultural products and land as a fundamental demand.

As to the Russian anarchists, I don't know enough to say, one way or the other. I'm not aware that they were politically significant in the sense that the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were...but that could be a case of the "winners" writing history.

The SR Maximalists had such a record. So did the anarchists, but that obviously isn't a political party.

About the first, I don't know. But I've recently been informed that "the grand old man" of Russian anarchism, Kropotkin, supported Russia in World War I. How many other Russian anarchists agreed with him is unknown to me.

Actually most today are turning to anarchism, not your version of Marxism.

I would be the last to deny that anarchism is making a big "come-back" in contemporary revolutionary practice. Further, I find myself in considerable sympathy with revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. Should these trends develop greater theoretical clarity and become history's "big winners", I don't think Marx would mind a bit; I know I wouldn't.

But I think you and I both know that anarchism up to this point has suffered from some serious weaknesses...mainly the tendency to drift into nutball irrelevancies like "anarcho-primitivism", "anarcho-occultism", etc. (You can probably tell I just finished reading Bookchin's book.)

The way things are now, anyone who "calls" himself an anarchist is accepted as one by other anarchists...leading to endless confusion.

Matters must improve.

:cool:

American Kid

28th July 2003, 04:23

I was really excited, Redstar, when I saw that you'd posted in this thread after me because I was anxious to see what you'd thought of what I wrote...

Bastard.

Anxiously awaiting the grade on his paper,
-ak

redstar2000

28th July 2003, 05:43

Quote: from American Kid on 10:23 pm on July 27, 2003
I was really excited, Redstar, when I saw that you'd posted in this thread after me because I was anxious to see what you'd thought of what I wrote...

Bastard.

Anxiously awaiting the grade on his paper,
-ak

*Gulp!*

Actually, there were left-wing German Social Democrats (non-Leninist Marxists) who had possibly never heard of Lenin and certainly never read him who engaged in "practical rebellion" against the Kaiser and the war. And the same thing happened in France and Italy.

In other words, Marxists can use "bricks and baseball bats" too. Engles, in 1848, actually took part in one of the insurrections in Germany (it lasted three days).

Yes, the Mensheviks were somewhat more likely to be on the A-list of the tonier gatherings in Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg)...but they also had considerable support among the workers. In the first months after the overthrow of the Czar, many workers had difficulty distinguishing between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks...it took some time for the "harder line" of the Bolsheviks to make itself felt.

Perhaps the real difference is that the Mensheviks not only considered a bourgeois revolution to be "appropriate" for Russia at that point in time (a Marxist analysis) but actively collaborated with the bourgeoisie to keep things from going any further, a most un-Marxist conclusion. They were "Marxists" in theory, and "left" bourgeois in practice. When the civil war began in 1918, the Mensheviks sided with the counter-revolution.

I hate grading papers...how does a B sound?

:cool:

American Kid

29th July 2003, 03:08

Fucking great.

Thanks, Mr. Star2000.

-ak

Morpheus

29th July 2003, 18:58

The Social Revolutionaries, being peasant-based, may well have had such notions...but would never have implemented them. The peasantry have always regarded a "free market" in agricultural products and land as a fundamental demand.

First off, there's a difference between capitalism and the market. There is such a thing as market socialism. Second, the peasantry aren't automatically in favor of the free market in land & agriculture. Anarcho-communist peasants in Ukraine set up communes where land & rescources where pooled. The same was done on a larger scale during the Spanish revolution - the rural revolution was actually more radical than the urban one.

As to the Russian anarchists, I don't know enough to say, one way or the other. I'm not aware that they were politically significant in the sense that the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were

Anarchists played a role in the Russian revolution. Anarchists helped in the october insurrection & the disbanding of the constitutuent assembly. Anarchist partisans fought in the civil war. In the Ukraine Anarchists played a major role, organizing communes, village assemblies, free soviets and militias to fight against reactionaries. You can read a long thing about this at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html Also check out http://www.struggle.ws/russia.html for more on anarchists in the Russian revolution. You might also read the book "The Unkown Revolution" by Voline.

I've recently been informed that "the grand old man" of Russian anarchism, Kropotkin, supported Russia in World War I. How many other Russian anarchists agreed with him is unknown to me.

Yes, he did. So did the immense majority of Marxist parties worldwide. He later changed his mind, if I remember correctly. The immense majority of anarchists, both in Russia and worldwide, were opposed to the war. Kropotkin wasn't even in Russia when the war started, he had been in exile for a long time and didn't return until after February.

But I think you and I both know that anarchism up to this point has suffered from some serious weaknesses...mainly the tendency to drift into nutball irrelevancies like "anarcho-primitivism", "anarcho-occultism", etc. (You can probably tell I just finished reading Bookchin's book.)

Oh, so wer'e not sectarian enough for you. Although I have some disagreements with it, I don't regard primitivism as a "nutball irrelevancy." While the anarchist movement is far from perfect I'll take it over the cult-ridden marxist movement any day. "Anarcho-occultism" may be wierd, but it's nothing compared to some of the crazy things spewed out by many Marxist micro-parties. At least anarchists don't have a history of ice-picking each other.

Also, most of Bookchin's attacks on other anarchists are straw men, especially in "Social Anarchists or Lifestyle anarchism". There is no such thing as "lifestyle anarchism" - it's just a term Boockhin made up to diss anarchists he disagrees with.

The way things are now, anyone who "calls" himself an anarchist is accepted as one by other anarchists...leading to endless confusion.

This isn't entirely true. Anyone who accepts the basic ideas of anarchism - the abolition of hierarchy, etc. - is accepted as an anarchist by most other anarchists. This is basic non-sectarianism. People who do not agree with those ideas are not accepted as anarchists even when they call themselves ones. For example, "anarcho"-capitalists and national "anarchists" are pretty much rejected by almost everyone in the anarchist movement. See infoshop's fake anarchists page: http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html I think the inclusiveness and diversity often exhibited by the anarchist movement is a good thing. I don't see why we need to be purging people over disagrements. We'd end up a bunch of tiny sects each claiming to be the only "true" anarchists. Marxist sects have already shown what a bad idea that is.

redstar2000

31st July 2003, 03:04

There is such a thing as market socialism.

Well, there's something that's called that. But as you might gather, I am more interested in what things really are than what they claim to be.

Anarcho-communist peasants in Ukraine set up communes where land & rescources where pooled. The same was done on a larger scale during the Spanish revolution - the rural revolution was actually more radical than the urban one.

Yes, I've come across such assertions, but I remain sceptical. If it did indeed happen that way, I think it would have been a temporary phenomenon. Of course, we really have no way of knowing how things would have turned out...

Anarchists played a role in the Russian revolution.

They certainly did; but I thought you were referring to the period 1900-1917. I have, as it happens, read Voline...but as I recall, his work deals with post-1917 events.

So did the immense majority of Marxist parties worldwide.

Indeed, they did; but my point was that the Bolsheviks didn't. That gave them the "moral high ground" in revolutionary Russia.

As to the position of the immense majority of Russian anarchists, I don't see how you could know that...unless you read Russian and have access to the original sources.

Oh, so we're not sectarian enough for you. Although I have some disagreements with it, I don't regard primitivism as a "nutball irrelevancy." While the anarchist movement is far from perfect I'll take it over the cult-ridden marxist movement any day. "Anarcho-occultism" may be weird, but it's nothing compared to some of the crazy things spewed out by many Marxist micro-parties. At least anarchists don't have a history of ice-picking each other.

No, I think you've demonstrated "anarcho-sectarianism" very effectively in that paragraph. In your political equation, Marxism equals ice-picks.

That's not very helpful...especially when said to someone who is sympathetic to the serious elements of anarchist thought.

And if the trends I mentioned are "not" nutball irrelevancies, then what are they? Why should you want to defend that kind of nonsense any more than I would defend Stalinism just because Stalin called himself a "Marxist"?

I think the inclusiveness and diversity often exhibited by the anarchist movement is a good thing. I don't see why we need to be purging people over disagrements.

I didn't ask that you "purge" anyone. I suggested that anarchists themselves need to figure out the differences between those ideas and practices that are genuinely revolutionary and those that are not.

Of course, so do Marxists.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

Abiyot

31st July 2003, 11:05

Sorry for making so many posts today (this would be my second or third one today). This one, will be definitely short. I just wanted to react to an old post by RedStar, on the thread/discussion (?) Leninism vs Marxism. Specifically his explanation regarding the Leninist notion of the vanguard. The notion of the vanguard is often understood in a very unfair and smewhat simplified manner. Often on the part of many, there is this instinctive gut reaction against the notion.

I am sure most of us are aware about the historical context in which Lenin formaulated the notion. To be very brief, Lenin formulated the context to underline the necessity for a revolutionary party to possess a modicum of discipline and efficiency. Before the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, the Russian SDLP, resembled a debating club or student union more than it did a revolutionary party. In the interests of efficiency and survival, Lenin advocated the notion of the vanguard.

Very simply, put this implied a party which should a common program, strategy and adhere to common tactics. A party made up of professional, disciplined revolutionaries. Most of the time the most common criticism of the notion of the vanguard is its undemocratic and unparticipatory nature, i.e. that the party would possess very little internal discussion and inner democracy. However, this would be an unfair and sweeping conclusion in that Lenin believed that the principles of "democratic centralism" should govern internal party relations. This implied the necessity for discussions, debate, the free exchange of ideas and democratic decision making. However, once decisions have been made based on the decisions and ideas of the majority of the party membership then all party members should adhere to the decisions and implement the decisions of the majority.

There is a second and equally important if not more important aspect of the vaguard as developed by Lenin. An aspect which is often glossed over or purposely ignored. For Lenin, the notion of the vanguard, the vanguard party implied a group of the most class conscoius, the most advanced workers and communists. It implied a high degree of commitment and discipline and the willingness to make all the necessary sacrifices. Above all it implied, that Communists and Communist parties should be the sources and the bearers of the most radical and thorough going critique of Capitalism and Capitalist social relations. Communists and Communist parties, should emphasize their solidarity with the struggles and concerns of all those who were oppressed and exploited. Basically Communists and CPs, should be the vanguard and the core of all opposition to the system. This implies that Communists and CPs, should develop the most radical positions on racism, national oppression, the exploitation and oppression of women. This is the second and probably more important aspect of the notion of the vanguard.

UP THE REVOLUTION!!!

TXsocialist

31st July 2003, 15:30

Well said, comrade

redstar2000

31st July 2003, 22:54

I am sure most of us are aware about the historical context in which Lenin formaulated the notion. To be very brief, Lenin formulated the context to underline the necessity for a revolutionary party to possess a modicum of discipline and efficiency. Before the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, the Russian SDLP, resembled a debating club or student union more than it did a revolutionary party. In the interests of efficiency and survival, Lenin advocated the notion of the vanguard.

That's a bit misleading. The reason Lenin wanted a "vanguard party" in the first place is because the kind of party that he actually admired--the German Social Democratic Party--was impossible under Russian conditions. It was not simply a matter of "debating club" vs. disciplined cadre...it was what could "work" under Russian conditions.

...that Lenin believed that the principles of "democratic centralism" should govern internal party relations. This implied the necessity for discussions, debate, the free exchange of ideas and democratic decision making. However, once decisions have been made based on the decisions and ideas of the majority of the party membership then all party members should adhere to the decisions and implement the decisions of the majority.

Lenin may have thought it should work like that...but it didn't.

In practice, the major decisions were made by Lenin and his inner circle and "ratified" by party congresses later (if ever).

Secondly, I noted that in Lenin's party there certainly was a great deal of discussion and debate...even in the pages of the party press--that is, right out in public. That has long since ceased to be the practice in modern Leninist parties; in their own eyes, the ideal "public" presence of a Leninist party is a solid monolith of iron unity. And there ain't much that happens out of the public eye either...there's never much discussion in a group where discussion is pointless.

For Lenin, the notion of the vanguard, the vanguard party implied a group of the most class conscious, the most advanced workers and communists.

It may have "implied" that, but I don't think the Bolsheviks had a majority of its members from the working class until well after February 1917. As I said, that's understandable considering the actual material conditions in Russia at the time.

Modern Leninist parties, of course, have often been considerably to the right not only of advanced class-conscious workers but even to the right of the bulk of the class itself.

Communists and Communist parties should be the sources and the bearers of the most radical and thorough going critique of Capitalism and Capitalist social relations.

"Should" is the operative word here; it happened often with the Bolsheviks 1900-1918; it happened some with a number of parties in the 1920s; and it's tailed off drastically ever since.

Today, it is shameful to admit, most so-called "Marxists" trail far behind many anarchists in the vigor of their critique of capitalist society. I suspect the vast majority of "communist" parties today are "communist" in name only. There may be a few, very small exceptions to that...but you would have to look hard to find them.

Basically Communists and CPs, should be the vanguard and the core of all opposition to the system. This implies that Communists and CPs, should develop the most radical positions on racism, national oppression, the exploitation and oppression of women.

Yeah, they should...but, for the most part, they don't!

What they do say is that they should "run the show" after the revolution. Should you actually know the "leaders" of a vanguard party, any party, just try to imagine what things would be like if they really did "run the show". :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

blackemma

1st August 2003, 07:12

To be fair, there are many strains of Marxist-inspired thought. I suppose the difference between anarchism and Marxism is two-fold in terms of the ideologies that spun off of them. While nearly all Communists - note the capital "C" - would call themselves Marxists, the majority of anarchists would not declare themselves followers of Proudhon, or even Godwin, despite them being the forerunners of the anarchist movement. Secondly, while anarchists tend to work together despite differences, it is not uncommon for market anarchists (mutualists) and social anarchists (communists) to work together, despite opposing economic systems, while the odds of cooperation between Trotskyite parties and Stalinist parties cooperating is quite slim.

With that in mind, there are many more strains of Marxism than the three biggies - Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism - and are worth looking into. Many of them can be found here (http://www.cwuplymouth.co.uk/ism.htm). For what it's worth, it's refreshing to see a Communist who is not antagonistic to libertarian ideas. In return, may I offer that not all anarchists are as hostile to Communism as would appear.

Blackberry

1st August 2003, 09:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 05:12 PM
With that in mind, there are many more strains of Marxism than the three biggies - Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism - and are worth looking into.
I'm sure RedStar2000 would disagree with your statement there. Those three ideologies contradict marxism.

blackemma

2nd August 2003, 02:59

I apologize. I meant ideologies which grew out of Marxism or modified it. I don't think for a minute that Leninism is pure Marxism. If you'll look back, you'll see I called them Marxist-inspired, implying they were/are different than their parent philosophy. Leninism and its offsprings, though influenced by Marxist thought signficantly, could be considered seperate ideologies, though I think it's fair to say they are all related.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 08:29

Originally posted by Neutral Nation+Aug 1 2003, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neutral Nation @ Aug 1 2003, 09:41 AM)
[email protected] 1 2003, 05:12 PM
With that in mind, there are many more strains of Marxism than the three biggies - Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism - and are worth looking into.
I'm sure RedStar2000 would disagree with your statement there. Those three ideologies contradict marxism. [/b]
How you ever came to this conclusion one may never know.

Blackberry

2nd August 2003, 09:03

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Aug 2 2003, 06:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Aug 2 2003, 06:29 PM)
Originally posted by Neutral [email protected] 1 2003, 09:41 AM

[email protected] 1 2003, 05:12 PM
With that in mind, there are many more strains of Marxism than the three biggies - Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism - and are worth looking into.
I'm sure RedStar2000 would disagree with your statement there. Those three ideologies contradict marxism.
How you ever came to this conclusion one may never know. [/b]
Marx never did advocate a dictatorship over the proletariat (vanguard).

redstar2000

2nd August 2003, 15:16

Sorting this mess out does get tricky at times. A lot depends on the context of the reference.

Historically, Leninism and its successors (Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism) are all variants of Marxism.

That is just a way of saying that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao all believed that they were Marxists, applying Marxist theory to their own immediate social conditions.

Nevertheless, it strikes me that there is a fundamental idealist core to Leninist ideology in all its forms.

Leninism assumes (as historical necessity, no less) that the "vanguard party" leads and directs the proletarian revolution...without it, nothing (of any significance) can happen.

That seems to me to be a fundamental departure from historical materialism...that the laws of capitalism create the conditions that make proletarian revolution unavoidable...whether or not there are any vanguard parties around and regardless of the "quality" of their "leadership".

The presence of revolutionary communists (or anarchists) can, at most, slightly accelerate that process--"ease the birth pangs of the new society" as Marx put it.

But it is the class that is "for itself" that actually makes the revolution and it does so only when material conditions provide the opportunity for success.

The idea that a small group of especially enlightened and perceptive people "can make it happen" (at a time and place of their choosing) as a "triumph of the will"...is really not Marxist at all; it's a kind of idealism.

Thus, Leninism (all kinds) is a historical descendent of Marxism but contains within its core assumptions an idea that is completely un-Marxist.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Bianconero

2nd August 2003, 15:44

"That seems to me to be a fundamental departure from historical materialism...that the laws of capitalism create the conditions that make proletarian revolution unavoidable...whether or not there are any vanguard parties around and regardless of the "quality" of their "leadership"."

The proletariat needs organization, it can never rise without being organized. And the party is nothing but an approach to organize the uneducated masses. They are uneducated, yes, because the capital doesn't allow them to get the education they deserve. The party is nothing but the proletariats conductor. A conductor the masses need.

And yes, this is not exactly what Marx and Friedrich Engels said. But we are not orthodox Marxists, now are we?

"But it is the class that is "for itself" that actually makes the revolution and it does so only when material conditions provide the opportunity for success."

What do you mean 'for itself'?

"The idea that a small group of especially enlightened and perceptive people "can make it happen" (at a time and place of their choosing) as a "triumph of the will"...is really not Marxist at all; it's a kind of idealism."

As a triumph of the proletariat. And it is not orthodox Marxism, yes, it's neo - Marxism. Or Leninist. I ask you, RedStar, why should we stick to everything Marx said? Why shouldn't we try to improve and extend his ideas when it is for the proletarian cause? Why should we be dogmatic? There is nothing more anti - marxist than being dogmatic.

redstar2000

3rd August 2003, 05:04

The proletariat needs organization, it can never rise without being organized.

But that's not really the issue. Does the proletariat spontaneously organize the forms of its liberation (the soviets, for example) or does it need a special cadre of "leaders" in advance (as the Leninists assert)?

We know, from history, that the proletariat does tend to organize itself in the act of rising. Thus, the Leninist thesis is false on the basis of the evidence alone.

And the party is nothing but an approach to organize the uneducated masses.

Well, actually it's a lot more than that. But just consider that point by itself: if the problem is that the masses are "uneducated", then why not "educate" them to organize themselves?

In fact, I've been advocating that...inspite of the criticism that such is a "do-nothing" or "passive" approach.

At our best, I think we communists can show people why they should make a revolution (material conditions show them a lot better than we can)...but the idea that we can "lead" a revolution simply because we "know more" is just wacko. We do not "know more" than the whole working class and we never will. The collective experiences of an entire class are far beyond what a small group could learn...even if the whole party membership were all at the level of Marx and Engels.

The party is nothing but the proletariat's conductor. A conductor the masses need.

But a revolution is not a symphony. That is a typical Leninist error...that somehow a small group of "gifted" or "brilliant" people can "impose order" on what is inherently disorderly.

When millions of people enter the world of conscious political activity, that changes everything.

What do you mean [a class] 'for itself'?

When Marx spoke of the proletariat becoming "a class for itself", the phrase means more in the original German than it does in English.

It connotes a sense of pride in one's class, a kind of self-confidence in one's "fitness to rule".

Thus one would say that the bourgeoisie in the 19th century became a true "class for itself", no longer feeling any kind of special awe for its old aristocratic "superiors".

Marx asserted that the proletariat would develop that same sense vs. the bourgeoisie as the conditions for proletarian revolution matured.

I ask you, RedStar, why should we stick to everything Marx said? Why shouldn't we try to improve and extend his ideas when it is for the proletarian cause? Why should we be dogmatic? There is nothing more anti - marxist than being dogmatic.

I agree completely. Marx and Engels were human beings, situated in history, with the same limitations that we all must inevitably suffer.

But when someone says: "Marx was wrong when he said X; I propose to substitute Y" -- then, we must ask ourselves: is Y truly superior to X? Does it fit the evidence better? Does it deepen our revolutionary understanding? Does it improve our ability to fight the prevailing social order?

I think Leninism fails on the basis of the answers to questions like that...not simply because it is "un-Marxist".

I was trying to answer a specific question: what kind of "Marxism" is Leninism...not what is wrong with Leninism.

The latter is a question I've discussed many times in many threads...and will probably have to do it again many more times.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

TXsocialist

3rd August 2003, 05:10

But that's not really the issue. Does the proletariat spontaneously organize the forms of its liberation (the soviets, for example) or does it need a special cadre of "leaders" in advance (as the Leninists assert)?

I challenge you to show me one workers' uprising where the revolt was not guided by class conscious worker-revolutionists

We know, from history, that the proletariat does tend to organize itself in the act of rising. Thus, the Leninist thesis is false on the basis of the evidence alone.

Lets step into the world of the real here - provide evidence. Show me where a class conscious force did not organize and guide any given proletarian revolt.

OK, i'm going to bed, be back tomorrow

blackemma

3rd August 2003, 05:59

I challenge you to show me one workers' uprising where the revolt was not guided by class conscious worker-revolutionists

I could attempt, but I'm sure the answer would be rather complicated and not black and white. For instance, guided by class conscious worker-revolutionists - what does that imply exactly? Was the Spanish Revolution a product of a worker-led vanguard? Well, no. Then again, that revolution was put down, so if you mean successful revolutions that's somewhat different. If you mean a centralized party, then Makhno's forces which fought against the Whites and the Bolsheviks also weren't organized in that manner, in fact it was a rather libertarian structure. The recent protests in Seattle have also been significantly coordinated in democratic, decentralized fashion with no central leadership... It all depends on what you mean exactly.

A more interesting question is whether or not there has ever been a vanguard revolution that did not eventually degenerate into a totalitarian state. I would say no, but I encourage Stalinists to present their views. I had a week long debate with a group of Trotskyites about this so I don't really desire another one, but it is food for thought.

redstar2000

3rd August 2003, 06:13

I challenge you to show me one workers' uprising where the revolt was not guided by class conscious worker-revolutionists.

That's not a very clear question. But let's concentrate on that word "guided"...which sort of implies the presence of a Leninist party.

The 1905 uprising in Russia clearly qualifies...there were only a small handful of leftists involved and I can't imagine in what sense you could say that anything was "guided".

Even more instructive is the case of the February 1917 revolution...there were more lefties around by then but the numbers involved in the uprising itself were far greater--probably in the tens of millions.

Most recently, of course, was the nation-wide general strike in May of 1968...which was (initially) opposed by the French Communist Party...although some small Trotskyist and Maoist groups supported it, no one would suggest they "guided" it or that anyone did.

Significant uprisings, by their very nature, are probably not "guide-able".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 06:52

Originally posted by Neutral Nation+Aug 2 2003, 09:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neutral Nation @ Aug 2 2003, 09:03 AM)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Neutral [email protected] 1 2003, 09:41 AM

[email protected] 1 2003, 05:12 PM
With that in mind, there are many more strains of Marxism than the three biggies - Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism - and are worth looking into.
I'm sure RedStar2000 would disagree with your statement there. Those three ideologies contradict marxism.
How you ever came to this conclusion one may never know.
Marx never did advocate a dictatorship over the proletariat (vanguard). [/b]
What do you think he meant by this;

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class -K Marx

As you can see (as comrade Lenin thought) this leaves quite a bit open to interpretation thus the ideal of the "vanguard" is hardly against marxist philosophy.

Bianconero

3rd August 2003, 14:32

But that's not really the issue. Does the proletariat spontaneously organize the forms of its liberation (the soviets, for example) or does it need a special cadre of "leaders" in advance (as the Leninists assert)?

We know, from history, that the proletariat does tend to organize itself in the act of rising. Thus, the Leninist thesis is false on the basis of the evidence alone.

Well, I see what you mean now.

Well, actually it's a lot more than that. But just consider that point by itself: if the problem is that the masses are "uneducated", then why not "educate" them to organize themselves?

There is a problem I see here. How on earth can we educate the masses in a system of capitalism, mass media etc. They are brainwashed and not listening. They don't get the education they would need to fight for their rights. I've been working in a socialist organization for a year now and everything we do is talk to people who simple are too uneducated to understand what we are actually talking about. You understand what I mean?

[b]In fact, I've been advocating that...inspite of the criticism that such is a "do-nothing" or "passive" approach.

At our best, I think we communists can show people why they should make a revolution (material conditions show them a lot better than we can)...but the idea that we can "lead" a revolution simply because we "know more" is just wacko. We do not "know more" than the whole working class and we never will. The collective experiences of an entire class are far beyond what a small group could learn...even if the whole party membership were all at the level of Marx and Engels.

I agree completely. Of course they have more experience, more collective experience. But they don't manage to deal with these experiences. They are, as I said, too uneducated. Poor families can't send their children to school, they even struggle to get enough water every day so how could they possibly send their kids to school to give them proper education?

That's the problem I see here. And what can we, those who want to educate them, do? We can give them flyers, talk a bit to them but that's it. At least that's my experience.

But a revolution is not a symphony. That is a typical Leninist error...that somehow a small group of "gifted" or "brilliant" people can "impose order" on what is inherently disorderly.

When millions of people enter the world of conscious political activity, that changes everything.

I agree of course. Your model would be better in theory, but I don't see the leftist movement educate the masses so that they rise by themselves. I really can't see that happening.

When Marx spoke of the proletariat becoming "a class for itself", the phrase means more in the original German than it does in English.

It connotes a sense of pride in one's class, a kind of self-confidence in one's "fitness to rule".

Thus one would say that the bourgeoisie in the 19th century became a true "class for itself", no longer feeling any kind of special awe for its old aristocratic "superiors".

Marx asserted that the proletariat would develop that same sense vs. the bourgeoisie as the conditions for proletarian revolution matured.

Well, I would not agree with comrade Marx here then.

I agree completely. Marx and Engels were human beings, situated in history, with the same limitations that we all must inevitably suffer.

But when someone says: "Marx was wrong when he said X; I propose to substitute Y" -- then, we must ask ourselves: is Y truly superior to X? Does it fit the evidence better? Does it deepen our revolutionary understanding? Does it improve our ability to fight the prevailing social order?

I think Leninism fails on the basis of the answers to questions like that...not simply because it is "un-Marxist".

I was trying to answer a specific question: what kind of "Marxism" is Leninism...not what is wrong with Leninism.

The latter is a question I've discussed many times in many threads...and will probably have to do it again many more times.

I see what you mean. In this case, I would indeed prefer option 'Y'.

redstar2000

3rd August 2003, 14:40

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 01:52 AM

What do you think he meant by this;

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class -K Marx

As you can see (as comrade Lenin thought) this leaves quite a bit open to interpretation thus the ideal of the "vanguard" is hardly against marxist philosophy.
Like much of the little that Marx and Engels wrote about post-capitalist society, it's ambiguous.

The phrase "in the course of development" sounds like a period of some years or even decades...certainly it would be difficult to argue against that interpretation.

But then Marx turns right around and speaks of the proletariat "sweeping away" by force the old conditions of production and thereby abolishing itself as a ruling class. That sounds to me like a pretty quick process, maybe a year or two at most.

Overall, I think he was uncertain and wrote that paragraph in such a way as to cover both possibilities.

But what is most relevant for this discussion is that he never speaks of political power in the hands of any small "more advanced" section of the proletariat (much less middle class intellectuals) but always speaks of the proletariat as a class.

If Marx or Engels actually thought a "vanguard" was the appropriate form of proletarian organization, they could have easily said so...they had many opportunities. Indeed, given the fact that they had only small groups of supporters in various European countries throughout nearly all of their lifetimes, it would have been very tempting for them to organize such a party, had they thought it appropriate.

From what I can tell, they preferred to emphasize mass rebellion of the proletariat; even their cooperation with the early German Social Democracy (with its emphasis on bourgeois elections) was clearly reluctant and they privately expressed misgivings about it.

It is quite possible that they would have endorsed a Leninist party for Russia (and other autocracies). We have no way of knowing. We do know that Engels was predicting (in the 1870s) that Russia would soon have its "1789"...a bourgeois revolution.

But I can't help but feel that they would view our contemprary Leninist sects--Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist--with the same contempt as they viewed the various "socialist" sects of their own time.

Pimples on the ass of the proletariat.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 00:14

Like much of the little that Marx and Engels wrote about post-capitalist society, it's ambiguous.

I agree, hence in my last statement I wrote, "this leaves quite a bit open to interpretation thus the ideal of the "vanguard" is hardly against marxist philosophy. "

Overall, I think he was uncertain and wrote that paragraph in such a way as to cover both possibilities.

Again, I agree. Since the revolutionary theories at this point were just that, there would be no possible way to test these theories using observation or experimentation. Both categorisations would need to be incorporated within the same body.

But what is most relevant for this discussion is that he never speaks of political power in the hands of any small "more advanced" section of the proletariat (much less middle class intellectuals) but always speaks of the proletariat as a class.

If Marx or Engels actually thought a "vanguard" was the appropriate form of proletarian organization, they could have easily said so...they had many opportunities. Indeed, given the fact that they had only small groups of supporters in various European countries throughout nearly all of their lifetimes, it would have been very tempting for them to organize such a party, had they thought it appropriate.

He also never really "guages" the size of the ruling body in numbers, once again leading to ambiguity.
I do feel (as comrade Lenin felt) that this potion of the manifest does indeed call for a "vanguard" or "ruling class developed from the proletariat" There is more evidence in this portion of the manifest that I did not add here (I am fully confident you know the portion I am speaking of) that suggests a "vanguard" is necessary. I think perhaps this may have been an issue that Marx and Engels perhaps disagreed on and hence comprimised by including both ideals into one. Seems to fit the bill seeing the relative ambiguous nature of the text.

redstar2000

4th August 2003, 07:11

There is a problem I see here. How on earth can we educate the masses in a system of capitalism, mass media etc. They are brainwashed and not listening. They don't get the education they would need to fight for their rights. I've been working in a socialist organization for a year now and everything we do is talk to people who simple are too uneducated to understand what we are actually talking about. You understand what I mean?

Try comic books.

I'm serious. An enormous amount of "socialist literature" is written at the level of university education...not surprising, since it's often written by university students.

Also, make sure you're not writing your materials in "Comintern-speak"...you know? That peculiar language that lefties used in the 1920s and 1930s that was almost theological in its obscurity.

But for places where literacy is dubious (and we have them even in the U.S.), I've often thought that a series of well-drawn comic books could introduce people to Marxist ideas in a form they would find easy to grasp. The same thing would go for leaflets...a four or six panel drawing making a single clear political point. (An obvious tip: the "good guys" should have a strong ethnic resemblence to your audience; the bad guys should all look like well-fed CEOs.)

Poor families can't send their children to school, they even struggle to get enough water every day so how could they possibly send their kids to school to give them proper education?

I take it that you are writing from a "backward" country with a large urban population of recent immigrants from the countryside and an even larger and very poor peasantry.

Sort of like Russia c.1900.

Well, you compel an answer from me that I don't like to give, but...there's no question that the Maoist version of Leninism "works" in countries like yours far more effectively than what I advocate for "first world" countries.

The likely outcome, if your revolution is successful, is a generation or two of "radical" measures (land reform, nationalization of industry, universal education & health care) followed by the restoration of capitalism.

I know it sounds both depressing and dogmatic to put it that way; but the truth of the matter is that, most likely, your country is probably run by a semi-colonial bourgeoisie allied with an old landed aristocracy...and that your "socialist revolution" will create the material conditions for the emergence of a "native" and much more vigorous bourgeoisie.

At least, we know that's what happened in Russia and China...and what is happening in Vietnam. Cuba is "on the knife's edge" and I would not care to predict the outcome at this point...but things don't look good.

All I can advise you is to try and make your Leninist-Maoist party as internally democratic as you can, try to get as many actual workers and poor peasants into it as you can...and hope that you can beat some very long odds.

Or attempt to find a country in western Europe that will let you in (not easy, I know)...but where you can work for communist revolution in circumstances that will permit that to both happen and have the greatest chance of actually establishing communism.

I apologize for such a grim message...I'm never happy when a Marxist analysis yields an answer that I would prefer to be different (more optimistic). And, there's always the possibility that Marx (and I) could be wrong. Maybe things will work out better in your country than I think possible.

I hope that happens.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

[b]"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas