Great leaders

[Dimentio]

One thing I am quite amused by - and troubled by in the same time - is the tendency of state-bearing vanguard parties to center the ideology and the symbolism of the state around one prominent leader. Almost every marxist-leninist state has had military-style May parades, with giant portraits of the "Great Leader" staring down on the population, remniscent of ancient god-kings of Mesopotamia.

Firstly, no human being is immortal, and vanguard states tend to fall quite quickly.

Secondly, in order to consolidate a government - bourgeoisie or progressive - you will need institutions which stand fairly independent from any political faction.

Thirdly, it is in my eyes a perversion of all notions of enlightenment, progressiveness and common decency to in a state based on an ideology of worker emancipation center the identity of society around one character, most often the "liberation hero", and thus aggrandize the individual above the people and above the institutions making him (for it is most often a "he") into something infallible.

That is of course only one part of the problem with vanguardism, but it is one of the most obvious parts. Even if the people genuinly love the leader, which I doubt most often is the case, the leader should downplay his own position and focus on building institutions and a working economic progress instead of wasting resources on statues of himself.

What do you think?

[careyprice31]

One thing I am quite amused by - and troubled by in the same time - is the tendency of state-bearing vanguard parties to center the ideology and the symbolism of the state around one prominent leader. Almost every marxist-leninist state has had military-style May parades, with giant portraits of the "Great Leader" staring down on the population, remniscent of ancient god-kings of Mesopotamia.

Firstly, no human being is immortal, and vanguard states tend to fall quite quickly.

Secondly, in order to consolidate a government - bourgeoisie or progressive - you will need institutions which stand fairly independent from any political faction.

Thirdly, it is in my eyes a perversion of all notions of enlightenment, progressiveness and common decency to in a state based on an ideology of worker emancipation center the identity of society around one character, most often the "liberation hero", and thus aggrandize the individual above the people and above the institutions making him (for it is most often a "he") into something infallible.

That is of course only one part of the problem with vanguardism, but it is one of the most obvious parts. Even if the people genuinly love the leader, which I doubt most often is the case, the leader should downplay his own position and focus on building institutions and a working economic progress instead of wasting resources on statues of himself.

What do you think?

I fully agree. Instead of wasting resources on themselves, the 'leader;' should use his resources to help the working class, the downtrodden and oppressed. and centering it around one (or more) leaders it does raise them above the ordinary people. Like Orwell said 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others'

My other problem with this elevation of a leader is that very frequently the leaders did not come from the working class. Lenin came from the upper class of society, and Stalin was born from former serfs who had been freed. Neither one was from the working class (and while I do not know much about Mao I suspect he was not as well), and they both had the idea that the working class was not by themselves able to organize a revolution despite the fact that the workers themselves had begun the February 1917 revolution in Russia, Lenin and Stalin still insisted that the workers had to be led along by a party of centralists "democratic centralism" and that party was led by a leader (the ABC of communism" it was called.

This contradicts Marxism in that Marx held that the workers themselves were able to gain class conciousness and fight for their own emancipation when the time came.

This is my other problem with the leaders you speak of, Serpent. Just a little more info to add to your post.

I will add though, in Lenin's defence, he did not do these things until about a year later until he had been shot by Kaplan in August 1918. That is actually when the biographies of him, one for the workers, one for the peasants, came out depicting him as one who had been chosen to suffer for the opressed. That is also when his official photograph came out. Lenin was barely known to the public before this time.

[Dimentio]

My only problem with your post.


I fully agree. Instead of wasting resources on themselves, the 'leader;' should use his resources to help the working class

The leader does not own the resources. It is the working people which is owning them.

[careyprice31]

My only problem with your post.



The leader does not own the resources. It is the working people which is owning them.

Not in the case of the Soviet Union.

To explain why is not for a small post; it is more a thesis for a masters degree to explain the Bolsheviks' ties to old autocratic Russian tradition rather than to Marxism and explaining why the USSR was never a Marxist/communist/socialist country, but Lenin never had believed in the workers having control over the means of production. Starting in 1918, the factories were to be managed by managers and those managers had to be Bolsheviks, toeing the Party line. Lenin had always believed the workers would never have gained class consciousness and revolt by themselves (this was proven wrong by the Feb 1917 revolution) and therefore they must be led. The fact that the workers went on massive strikes between 1918 and 1921 shows that the Bolsheviks lost support among the workers, not gained it. Also the fact that the strikes were put down and suppressed by force.

That said, it should also be noted that the ideas that occurr to one or to a few people and which are then passed on , those people could in some way be considered leaders of a sort.

For example we Russian history studies students consider the people who came back from the Napoleonic wars, saw that their own country of Russia was far behind the societies of Europe, and founded secret socieites dedicated to overthrowing the Tsar and setting up a more European system, starting with December 26, 1825, these people in a way could be called 'leaders.' They were really the founders of the idea of revolution in Russia, overthrowing the monarchy and setting up a completely different system of government. Their love was the Constituent Assembly and they had dreamed of it for almost a 100 years. Before the Napoleonic wars, the ideas that occurred to such people as Stenka Razin and Emeliyan Pugachov were more that of reform, rather than revolution.

My point is, that a leader, if the right kind, and a certain type, can be very valuable to a society. To condemn leaders altogether is a bad thing. but it takes the right kind and the certain type of a person to be a truely 'great' leader, the leader of a movement, or really, of anything.

[Dimentio]

It is unnecessary to condemn the leaders, but necessary to condemn systems which are creating unaccountability and non-transparent oligarchic hierarchies, of which vanguardism is just the most absurd example (since it is the only case where the elite is governing in the name of the oppressed).

[careyprice31]

It is unnecessary to condemn the leaders, but necessary to condemn systems which are creating unaccountability and non-transparent oligarchic hierarchies, of which vanguardism is just the most absurd example (since it is the only case where the elite is governing in the name of the oppressed).

well.......yes, I can see the validity of your words here.

After all, the old autocratic Russian system did not begin with Lenin, therefore he should not be blamed for that. It was necessary to condemn the system, as u rightfully pointed out.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think this is a problem that is not exclusive to the "socialism in one country" states, but it is/has been rife within then.

An obvious example is the DPRK, and while i hate the bureaucracy for their incompetence, the country is isolated and full of the war crimes or Japan and USA and the USA continues to threaten them, even branded them as part of the axis of evil.

So, just like in WW2, the British people supported Churchill even though many hated the party he was a member of parliament for, because the threat of the nazi's was so great. Hero worship happens when people are scared of unforeseen events and prospects. In the DPRK it is the same, kim jong il and kim il sung might manipulate it as they are conservative and but the people in the DPRK are not stupid, they know there is a threat to them and it is no surprise that, when disenfranchised from popular democracy they turn to the leaders to provide security.

the communist countries were always unstable because there was an absence of class leadership, they were neither bourgeois (which favours liberal democracy) nor proletarian (which favours social democracy) but bureaucratic which doesn't provide a good enough social system to exist without a degree of repression and isolation, so in the same way as the capitalist class are described as " a band of hostile brothers" so might you describe the allied communist states. Each of which gives a national spin on their own politics, and evoking "great leaders".

These countries have problems not because they desire this, but because they are unable to develop without it. But it is not limited to the communist states at all.

[Dimentio]

I think you are on to something, that "marxist-leninist" states generally lacks a class base from the beginning. In the end, most of them has ironically enough turned into full capitalist states.

[careyprice31]

I think you are on to something, that "marxist-leninist" states generally lacks a class base from the beginning. In the end, most of them has ironically enough turned into full capitalist states.

He is onto something. It certainly was true for Tsarist Russia, being neither bourgeois liberal nor proletarian social, but bureaucratic, monarchist, and autocratic.

In the 1830's there were the signs of a beginning emerging bourgeois class of merchants and so on, but that was only a small beginning.

[Dimentio]

He is onto something. It certainly was true for Tsarist Russia, being neither bourgeois liberal nor proletarian social, but bureaucratic, monarchist, and autocratic.

In the 1830's there were the signs of a beginning emerging bourgeois class of merchants and so on, but that was only a small beginning.

Yes, but what most trotskyists are forgetting is that independent marxist-leninist revolutions (not brought forward by Soviet tanks and advisors) have generally taken place in quite backward states, which shares several characteristics with Tsarist Russia.

Therefore, I think that the Winter Palace Storming-style revolution was rather the culmination of 1848 than a beginning of something entirely new.

[careyprice31]

Therefore, I think that the Winter Palace Storming-style revolution was rather the culmination of 1848 than a beginning of something entirely new.

You mean the feb revolution of 1917? or the october revolution of 1917 was like 1848?

No doubt the ones above were influenced somewhat by 1848.

The original founders of the idea of revolution in Russia however were not. The Decembrist Revolt happened in 1825.

1848 happened in - well duhh! :laugh:

The idea of revolution in Russia did not come from 1848.

[Dros]

I obviously disagree. I think that there need to be institutions that allow for longevity and function independent of a "Great Leader" figure. At the same time, there are certain individuals who carry unique charecteristics and sentiments and who exist within the correct objective and subjective conditions so as to effect change in a truly radical way. It is of course wrong to deify these people and all of the religious personality cults constructed around Stalin and to a lesser extent Mao were perpetrated largely by revisionist factions (Lin Biao and Nikita Krushchev) and these should be avoided. It is not wrong, in my view, to use a leader with special charecteristics to focus the revolution and that has proved useful in terms of the history of the socialist experience.