Marxism and Insurrection

[peaccenicked]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm

Marxism is not Blanquism, we dont want to create a coup de etat but the most democratic form of transition. This debate is not about Lenin's record but his contribution to theory on this matter. I say that it should not be discounted despite the mistakes and crimes of the Bolsheviks under seige.

[kromando33]

Damn you people are so soft on the bourgeois, your petty idealism will always prevent you from doing anything to strengthen the worker movement. Class warfare means war friend, and people die.

[Dros]

Oh I don't know. Maybe if we convince enough people that capitalism is wrong and we win an election, the Bourgeoisie imperialists will just give up all their power!

What a joke. Get over your "democratic" reformist wet dream. I would like to officially welcome you to reality. Firstly, in order to win a bourgeois election, you have to convince enough Bourgeoisie to give you funding so you can get out you message. Not going to happen. Secondly, the elections are a total joke. You would not get power even if you did win them. The Bourgeoisie have a fascist streak. If you won an election and had the power to change democratically, there would be a reactionary coup instantly Also, the Bourgeoisie would attack YOU. They would go after your movement. They have in the past stopped at nothing. Read up on the history of the Black Panther Party and COINTELPRO.

The ruling classes have guns and they are not at all afraid to use them to preserve their position. This revolution will be violent. It will be bloody.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:24 pm
Oh I don't know. Maybe if we convince enough people that capitalism is wrong and we win an election, the Bourgeoisie imperialists will just give up all their power!

What a joke. Get over your "democratic" reformist wet dream. I would like to officially welcome you to reality. Firstly, in order to win a bourgeois election, you have to convince enough Bourgeoisie to give you funding so you can get out you message. Not going to happen. Secondly, the elections are a total joke. You would not get power even if you did win them. The Bourgeoisie have a fascist streak. If you won an election and had the power to change democratically, there would be a reactionary coup instantly Also, the Bourgeoisie would attack YOU. They would go after your movement. They have in the past stopped at nothing. Read up on the history of the Black Panther Party and COINTELPRO.

The ruling classes have guns and they are not at all afraid to use them to preserve their position. This revolution will be violent. It will be bloody.
What does this have to do with anything related to this thread? :wacko:

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You know, if the proletariat want a revolution, and you have convinced a large amount of them that your program is the best, then you shouldn't have any problem in putting it to a vote.

It is what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did, and that was with a small proletariat.

What is Utopian, is thinking any armed struggle by a small group of people inside a country with a strong state. And even if you did win, you couldn't guarantee the proletariat wouldn't vote back the guys you just ousted.

Mass movements define epochs and change societies, and democratic process can be part of that.

What isn't epoch changing is rolling tanks into countries, because the local bureaucrats have been getting nervous.

[Dros]

You know, if the proletariat want a revolution, and you have convinced a large amount of them that your program is the best, then you shouldn't have any problem in putting it to a vote.

See above.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The historic fact remains that revolutions are made by broad masses of people, and that if charge on ahead without the support of the working class, you are likely to end up dead, or sidelined. The isolated sects that are prevalent today are incapable of confrontation with the capitalist state, it is the class, under the pressures of a series of wars, civil wars, and economic crises, that truly makes a revolutionary situation.

What Marxists realize is that the working class, in their position insofar as social production is concerned, has the power to shut all of society down just by folding their arms, and refusing to work. That seperates us from other socialist tendencies - while some believe that capitalism can regain its bearings, or that a a small band of gun-wielding rebels can come around and impose their romanatic ideas on society, we uphold that socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class.

The Bolsheviks did launch a coup (by historical definition), but it was democratic, and demanded by the advanced section of the working classes. They already secured a majority in the Soviets of the cities and the armies, and quickly won the Moscow and Petrograd Municipal Duma elections. After Kornilov's attempted coup, the Soviet Central Executive Committee reported that resolutions were adopted by Soviets from the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Central Asia that called for the Petrograd Soviet to seize power. The sailors of the Baltic squadron, anchored at Helsinki, along with the Kronstadt sailors, were threatened with reprisals, and called for seizure of power before their slaughter ensued. Rodzyanko, Krasnov, and Bulakhovich were nearing the 'Red Capital' with their forces, and the crust of the Bolshevik argument to seize power and act preemptively before the Soviets were crushed.

[Lenin II]

we dont want to create a coup de etat but the most democratic form of transition.

Actually, we Leninists do want a coup. A violent overthrow of capitalism is the only logical way.


This debate is not about Lenin's record but his contribution to theory on this matter. I say that it should not be discounted despite the mistakes and crimes of the Bolsheviks under seige.

We’ll ignore that left communist talking point for the sake of the subject at hand.


What does this have to do with anything related to this thread? :wacko:

Did you even read what he posted? He was making a point against reformism, which is what this thread is about.


You know, if the proletariat want a revolution, and you have convinced a large amount of them that your program is the best, then you shouldn't have any problem in putting it to a vote.

And how long will that take? A hundred years? A thousand? While capitalism continues to rape the planet? We have no interest in bourgeoisie elections. We are interested in nothing less than class warfare.

It is what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did,
No, it isn’t.


What is Utopian, is thinking any armed struggle by a small group of people inside a country with a strong state.

Because lord knows no revolution such as that has ever succeeded, right? :rolleyes: A revolution is made directly by a minority against the state. This concept is not in conflict with Leninist theory.


To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.

As you can see, nothing in this essay advocated a democratic overthrow of capitalism using the ballot. All it says is that insurrection must wait until the conditions of the nation in question are suitable for revolution.


And even if you did win, you couldn't guarantee the proletariat wouldn't vote back the guys you just ousted.

Yes we can. Since we will have destroyed the bourgeoisie as a class, there will be no one to “run” against the party, and that’s even assuming we hold elections at all.

[chimx]

You know, if the proletariat want a revolution, and you have convinced a large amount of them that your program is the best, then you shouldn't have any problem in putting it to a vote.

Yes. Marx advocated the use of a democratic power transition without the need for violence.


It is what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did, and that was with a small proletariat.

Not only did the Bolsheviks fail to win a majority in the Constituent Assembly, but they failed to win a true majority in the 2nd Congress of Soviets, obtaining only 300 of the 670ish seats. The only reason they were eventually able to dominate that body was because of the walkout of the Menshies and SRs.

Here is what Sukhanov wrote on this poorly thought-out walk-out:


"we completely untied the Bolsheviks' hands, making them masters of the entire situation and yielding to them the whole arena of the revolution. A struggle at the congress for a united democratic front might have had some success. . . . By quitting the congress, we ourselves gave the Bolsheviks a monopoly of the Soviet, of the masses, and of the revolution. By our own irrational decision, we ensured the victory of Lenin's whole 'line'!"

[Lenin II]

Yes. Marx advocated the use of a democratic power transition without the need for violence.
He also said that no ruling class has ever willingly given up its power and that without armed struggle, no people has ever been freed.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't think the original poster is denying the need for revolution. A 'democratic transition' in this context does not mean the use of the parliamentary system to secure power, but a revolution that is based on the support and political initiative of the working class, resulting in the complete transformation of state power. This is distinct from what could be called an 'un-democratic transition' whereby the conditions for revolution do not exist, and yet a small group, divorced from the general population, tries to attain political power through outbursts of violence directed at the centers of state power, in the vain hope that the state will collapse or that violence will force the state to impose repressive measures on political activity, thereby prompting the proletariat to revolt. This strategy was employed by a range of different groups, including the Red Army Faction, but was never successful.

The difference between a revolution and a coup is a matter of great contention; but I understand a coup to mean a change in the composition of the state apparatus without accompanying changes in how production is organized and the disruption of traditional power structures. In this respect, the October revolution clearly was not a 'coup' because it allowed for the extension of Soviet power to every section of the economy, and the redistribution of land to the peasantry. Conversely, other historical events, such as the recent army takeover in Thailand, were not revolutionary in nature.


Not only did the Bolsheviks fail to win a majority in the Constituent Assembly, but they failed to win a true majority in the 2nd Congress of Soviets, obtaining only 300 of the 670ish seats. The only reason they were eventually able to dominate that body was because of the walkout of the Menshies and SRs.

This has already been discussed many times; the outcome of the Constituent assembly did not give a reliable indication of the level of Bolshevik support, because the rate of abstention was high (above 50% in some areas) and polling was often not conducted in areas where the Bolshevik would easily have been able to secure a complete electoral victory, for example, the war front. By abolishing the assembly, the Bolsheviks introduced a higher form of democracy in the form of soviet power, which included a system of recall, under which delegates could be replaced at any time, and eliminated the flash distinction between 'economic' and 'political' spheres which exists under all forms of bourgeois political organization. The Constituent Assembly was supported by leaders who had opposed the revolution and recognized that the assembly was the only way they could continue to yield political influence.

How can a so-called 'revolutionary' such as yourself support such an assembly? Surely you want a rapid transition to workers' power?

[chimx]

I am talking about the 2nd congress of soviets.

[FireFry]

"But, in a large and fuzzy sense, I know what I want to see: clear commuist ideas should be as wide-spread and well-understood by all of society as capitalist ideas are understood now. Not that a very large number of people won't still disagree with us; but even they will know just what it is they're disagreeing with. We must become an integral part of the "universe of public discourse" that everyone will have to confront.

Nothing less will do."


I couldn't agree with redstar more on this issue, the best that we as communists
can do is not alienate ourselves from the bars and taverns of the working class in our own little communist party HQs, we need to interact and get communism well known, not as an insurrectionary minority movement, but as a POPULAR movement. That's the only way it will ever be popular in the United States.

[peaccenicked]

Chile 1972 was an example of a coup from the US. Allende had majority support and was democratically elected. I think it was Ted Grant who said he should have armed the people. Strangely enough I met a plumber in Glasgow who told me of fighting against Pinochet. I think the US attack drove fear into the heart of the people, and later the disappearances.
It is sign of the times that leftists like Chavez are not being so viciously attacked at the level of coup. The empire is crumbling, a world revolution becomes daily the only option beyond increased poverty. Revolution is not about armed struggle but it may become so, in that the security of the majority decision must be defended.