Little Lenin Syndrome; What it is and how to deal with it

[Led Zeppelin]

I've been meaning to write this for some time now to use for future references whenever this illness crops up and needs elaboration. First of all, this is not aimed at any members of Revleft specifically, and it is not aimed at any specific ideology or political tendency either.

It is aimed at people, genuine communists, who are just sick and tired of coming across this disease and are so put off by it that they think about leaving the movement altogether. My intention is to let those people know that they are not alone in their frustration, and that there is a solution to the problem.


Diagnosis:

What is Little Lenin syndrome exactly?

I'm sure many active comrades have come across it, since it is very prevalent in leftist organizations, and the rule applies; The smaller the organization, the more prevalent the disorder.

In Lenin's day it was probably called the Little Marx syndrome, for I can't imagine a time where this disorder didn't exist in the revolutionary left.

Everyone has an ego, right? But luckily, most of us are capable of controlling it under most circumstances. We are able to make sure that the end is always more important to us than the means. This should be the basis of any revolutionary. If the ends are not your main and sole motivation, you will get hung up over the means, and start clinging to them like a drowning man clings to a log of wood.

By the ends, I mean revolution, socialism, communism, participation in the class-struggle for the benefit of the working-class.

By the means, I mean the organization you do this through, the paper you write for, the party you are a member of, etc.

If the means are more important to you than the ends, you will lose sight of the latter, there is no doubt about that. In fact, if the means are more important to you than the ends, then you have already betrayed your own conviction, for the ends renders the means superfluous.

Here's a good practical example: Your organization decides to do something obviously reactionary - it has in effect been taken over by reactionary elements - what do you do if the means are more important to you than the ends? You are most likely to have been part of the degeneration, and if you aren't, you will be after it happened, because you reason to yourself: "Oh well, this is the future vanguard of the working-class revolution! It's best to stick with them!"

Absolutely pathetic, but this is the reality of many so-called "revolutionary" organizations, isn't it?

These Little Lenin's (this term reminds me of those Little Eichmann's, whom they resemble very much) do nothing but harm the movement with their blatant ignorance of revolutionary history and theory. By their very existence they are contradicting the ideology they claim to follow.

As with most disorders, there are various gradations of the syndrome, let me list them:


The Active Bee:

This Little Lenin is very active and urges everyone else to follow in their footsteps. Sell papers! Recruit people off the street! Organize something! Through this behavior this Little Lenin is able to get quite a high position in the machinery of the organization, because what organization does not like active members?

There is always a sense of urgency with this Little Lenin. The world is coming to an end, we're entering a recession, no, worse, a depression, on a scale never before seen in history! Capitalism is about to self-destruct! We must be ready to lead the working-class to revolution or humanity is doomed!

Add a few bits and pieces of Marxist-sounding rhetoric and you have your "revolutionary".

Ironically this Little Lenin is the most ignorant of revolutionary theory and history. This is related to their urgency of activity, theory is irrelevant to them, activity is the sole-end of their goals.

When this Little Lenin has gotten a position of influence in the machinery of the organization or party, you better not anger them! They will stop at nothing to use (read; abuse) their position to get back at you. Never dare to contradict them (which is easy given their ignorance of revolutionary theory and history) or they will shout you down, question your "revolutionary-ness" given your lack of activity (in proportion to their own, of course), and never forget about it. Especially do not contradict them when you are a mere commoner, then they will really see red, and not in the communist sense of the term either.

People like this only hamper the movement, repel potential revolutionaries, and only serve their own petty interests. They are like leeches on any organization or party, sooner or later they will suck them dry of any revolutionary potential (in most cases they already have).

In conclusion, this Little Lenin is sure of the fact that he is indeed the next Lenin, for he has sacrificed so much for the party, the organization (the means), surely he will be rewarded for this in the future?


The Theory Nut:

This Little Lenin is certainly less harmful than the one described above, precisely because of their lack of activity in the real movement. It is much easier to ignore this one because you don't actually have to deal with them in practice.

Theory is a tool to be used for super-human purposes by this person. Everything wrong with the movement can be reduced to the wrong theory. So what is the solution? Come up with a better theory. And who better to do this than me, the next Lenin!

Practical activity, which gives a lot of insight in theory and specifically its application to practice, is essential to really know if your theory holds up, but no, this is not relevant to our Little Lenin, for he has known what is real in practice through the books he has read about it!

Yes, the theoretical knowledge of this person can come quite in handy if they do decide to "mend their ways" and become a serious revolutionary, but sadly most of them don't. To them revolutionary theory is a solely metaphysical matter, they only like the phrases, the solutions to historical problems, the analysis of events, etc. for purely problem-solving and flaunting purposes, like a game of chess.

When it stops being interesting, or reality smacks them in the proverbial face, they'll go on with their "real life", meaning their life as typical people doing typical things, the "ordinary life", as it's called.


Combination of both?

I have never come across a combination of both the Little Lenin's, mostly because they are mutually exclusive in a way. You can't be solely focused on one aspect, theory or practical activity, while also being solely focused on another.

It's an either-or matter.


Conclusion:

The conclusion is that people with such huge egos are only hampering the development of our movement. We don't need brats like these, who think so highly of themselves while thinking so lowly of others, to disgust, repel and repulse genuinely interested people from revolutionary leftist politics and theory.

I personally am sick and tired of them, but I won't let their idiocy effect my convictions, and neither should you, because to us the ends are more important than the means by which we want to get there.

[Tower of Bebel]

Who are, and what have you done with LZ?

Have you elaborted this yourself? I would like to add that I don't like the name of your syndrome. I would opt for the pseudo-Lenin.

[Led Zeppelin]

Have you elaborted this yourself?

What do you mean?


I would like to add that I don't like the name of your syndrome. I would opt for the pseudo-Lenin.

You misunderstand what I mean by Little Lenin.

I am not saying that they are really like Lenin, I am saying that they would like to see themselves as being the next Lenin, therefore the Little Lenin syndrome.

Naturally they have nothing in common with Lenin.

[Wanted Man]

Do you have any specific motivation to write this? Like, a recent disillusionment with a political organization, or an encounter with a specific 'Little Lenin'? I know you said in your opening that it was in the works for a while, but surely there must be some sort of spark?

Anyway, I can count myself lucky not to have prolonged exposures to anyone like this, despite being in a small organization. It seems to me that the two archetypes that you describe come from an over-emphasis on either practice or theory.

Your 'Active Bee' probably firmly believes that they are "at least doing something", like selling a lot of papers. 'Selling papers' is of course a big cliche, but I always find it a real turn-off when a report from some organization takes a whole paragraph to say "our newspaper was well received among the public". Of course, activities of one individual or a small group will not directly lead to revolution. But there exist some very concrete actions, like practical solidarity with strikes and the active (putting something in a newspaper is passive) promotion of working class solidarity and internationalism. Other activities are futile, and anyone priding themselves on futilities may be one of your 'Active Bees'.

Your 'Theory Nut' doesn't necessarily need to have a lot of book smarts. Just as often, you'll find someone who isn't that knowledable, but simply chants "No investigation - no right to speak!" to any disagreement. Or thinks that the degeneration of a socialist party or state is simply a matter of having a "bad line" and that, presumably, a "good line" would make things all right. Sometimes they mask it behind "(petty-)bourgeois line" or "proletarian line" without actually looking at the class makeup of the subject. One particular line is afflicted by this tendency, which I won't mention for the sake of non-sectarianism in this thread.

So anyway, this gives some food for thought. But it still seems a bit arbitrary to group people together like this, just for having certain theoretical or practical tendencies that have a negative effect on organization. It seems to be more about a 'feel' that you perceive in certain persons, one that I can agree with, but is still mostly a personal feeling that someone else might perceive completely differently. Could you elaborate on what kind of organization your 'Little Lenins' thrive on? Or do you think there's a particular kind of class background behind it?

[CheGuevaraRage]

Did you meant that Little Lenins are the people in a organisation that want to be an overachiever no matter the costs and by that they slow down the organisations work (because organisation is a result of all members work not one member's work)

[Led Zeppelin]

Do you have any specific motivation to write this? Like, a recent disillusionment with a political organization, or an encounter with a specific 'Little Lenin'? I know you said in your opening that it was in the works for a while, but surely there must be some sort of spark?

No, there wasn't really any one event which caused a "spark", it was just something I had gathered from the various organizations and parties I have been active in, and have seen others be active in, over the past few years.

I am going to a meeting of a new party tomorrow, and I want to make sure that the failures of the past are not repeated with them, that is, if I do decide to join them.

But most importantly, I don't want other people to be put off by these Little Lenin's.

It's a real shame to see genuinely interested people turning away from revolutionary politics altogether just because they had the misfortune of having to deal with such individuals.


Your 'Active Bee' probably firmly believes that they are "at least doing something", like selling a lot of papers. 'Selling papers' is of course a big cliche, but I always find it a real turn-off when a report from some organization takes a whole paragraph to say "our newspaper was well received among the public". Of course, activities of one individual or a small group will not directly lead to revolution. But there exist some very concrete actions, like practical solidarity with strikes and the active (putting something in a newspaper is passive) promotion of working class solidarity and internationalism. Other activities are futile, and anyone priding themselves on futilities may be one of your 'Active Bees'.

Your 'Theory Nut' doesn't necessarily need to have a lot of book smarts. Just as often, you'll find someone who isn't that knowledable, but simply chants "No investigation - no right to speak!" to any disagreement. Or thinks that the degeneration of a socialist party or state is simply a matter of having a "bad line" and that, presumably, a "good line" would make things all right. Sometimes they mask it behind "(petty-)bourgeois line" or "proletarian line" without actually looking at the class makeup of the subject. One particular line is afflicted by this tendency, which I won't mention for the sake of non-sectarianism in this thread.

That is a pretty accurate summary, I don't disagree with all of that.


So anyway, this gives some food for thought. But it still seems a bit arbitrary to group people together like this, just for having certain theoretical or practical tendencies that have a negative effect on organization. It seems to be more about a 'feel' that you perceive in certain persons, one that I can agree with, but is still mostly a personal feeling that someone else might perceive completely differently. Could you elaborate on what kind of organization your 'Little Lenins' thrive on? Or do you think there's a particular kind of class background behind it?

My analysis was limited to revolutionary leftist organizations and parties of any tendency, and I don't believe class-background has a big part to play in their development.

As I said, people have egos, but most of us can control them under most circumstances. The people who can't because they have an ego too big for their own good are the ones that can seriously harm the atmosphere of an organization or party.

Let me put it this way; the future bureaucrats and careerists are most likely to be found amongst these Little Lenin's.

And also very important, I'm not claiming I invented a new phenomena or something, this has been existent in revolutionary organizations from the days of Marx and Engels!


Did you meant that Little Lenins are the people in a organisation that want to be an overachiever no matter the costs and by that they slow down the organisations work (because organisation is a result of all members work not one member's work)

Some of the Busy Bees are like that, yes.

But that was not the main point.

If a person is very active that is not a bad thing at all.

It is their general Little Lenin attitude which they want to enforce upon the organization while justifying it by citing their amount of activity.

[Wanted Man]

I am going to a meeting of a new party tomorrow, and I want to make sure that the failures of the past are not repeated with them, that is, if I do decide to join them.
It's probably useless to ask, but will you tell us which one? :D Anyway, good luck with it. And thanks for the elaboration, I was wondering about that.

[Led Zeppelin]

It's probably useless to ask, but will you tell us which one? :D

Why would it be useless? I'm not paranoid.

It's a relatively new party called Doorbraak (Breakthrough in English), here's a link to their site, which isn't very good graphically, but give em some time: Link (http://www.doorbraak.eu/content/view/1/2/)

I met two of their members at the discussion group we started in Utrecht, at the Rooie Rat bookstore.

The meeting tomorrow is there as well.

I do want to add though that I still agree with CWI's theoretical positions and ideology, and would probably have been a member of one of their other national chapters (and may possibly be in the near future if I leave the country).


Anyway, good luck with it. And thanks for the elaboration, I was wondering about that.

No problem.

[CheGuevaraRage]

I didnt meant that active people are bad,i meant that active people who's motive is personal glory are bad...

[Bilan]

Interesting article, LZ.

[AGITprop]

The Theory Nut:

I think we ALL know who this is.

:)

[Marsella]

I had the same feelings when I was in a Trot party.

Anyhow, I think it stems from the elitist views Leninists hold 'We are the vanguard...we must lead the masses...our ideas are right...blah blah blah.'

That personifies itself in assholish members. Combined with the intellectual snobbery and the lack of working class people in such organisaitons, most parties are cultish in behaviour and, like LZ said, put members off from revolutionary politics for good.

[Marsella]

And no offence LZ, but you have a fucking huge ego. :lol:

When you and TAT go at it, its like a battle of the egos.

(And yes, mine is huge also)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anyhow, I think it stems from the elitist views Leninists hold 'We are the vanguard...we must lead the masses...our ideas are right...blah blah blah.'

That personifies itself in assholish members. Combined with the intellectual snobbery and the lack of working class people in such organisaitons, most parties are cultish in behaviour and, like LZ said, put members off from revolutionary politics for good.

:rolleyes:

"[The socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.” (http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm) (Karl Kautsky)

[Marsella]

What an idealistic view.

No socialist party can 'hasten the day when the working-class is able to save itself.'

And funnily enough, the vanguard has always ended up as susbsituting itself for the working class in terms of power.

So :rolleyes: yourself, you useless ****.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So says our resident, mechanistic, and vulgar-materialist sponty. :glare:

“Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed.” (Lars Lih)

That process, like it or not, is VANGUARDISM. Without this, MASSES of workers CANNOT gain class consciousness BY THEMSELVES to the point where they can liberate themselves.

[Marsella]

You like to set up these principles in concrete, of which you provide no logical argument behind, but expect me, like your fellow zombies, to accept.

It's not going to happen fuckwit.

But if you want a battle of the 'quotes' then I can give you some.

In fact I can give you some of Marx's which directly counter what you have stated:

“No socialist,” remarked the Doctor, smiling, “need predict that there will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation”. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm

"The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul." Introduction to Karl Marx's, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 by Frederick Engels (1895)

"The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labor, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie…Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate." Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality 1847, Collected Works, Volume 6

Moreover, do a MIA search for the term 'worker's state.'

Marx used that term twice in all his writings. 22 years apart in fact. Yet today, 'communists' can't help but apply the word in every second sentence. Utopians in the extreme.

Besides, we don't need a battle of the quotes to prove that you are wrong.

History has veriifed Marx and made Lenin redundant: no form of political organisation can overcome material conditions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are assuming that Marx and Engels were reductionist anti-vanguardists (Marx was a reductionist in other matters, such as his initial position on class relations, as well as his binary thinking on sectarianism). If so, why did they support the VANGUARD organization of August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht?

[Led Zeppelin]

I didnt meant that active people are bad,i meant that active people who's motive is personal glory are bad...

Oh ok, then yes, that's part of what I meant by Little Lenin, it is inherent in their character.

Some people may think that I was using the term Little Lenin as a compliment, but that is not so. No one can be Lenin, Marx, Engels, or any other revolutionary leader of the past. The entire point of Marxism is that we do not glorify leaders or raise them to the status of Gods.

Yes, we admire them and their talents, knowledge and understanding of the world; healthy admiration is something entirely different from cultification.

This why Little Lenin is the same as pseudo-Lenin, anyone who's aim is to "become like Lenin" (and by that is obviously meant his status as "revolutionary leader", his abilities and talents are irrelevant to these people) is a poor pathetic sod who has too big of an ego for their own good. Imagine this, you raise Lenin to the status of a God, and then you want to be in his position yourself, doesn't that make you a God as well? Or at least one of his prophets, right?

It's inane.

That is not to say that people who would like to resemble Marx, Lenin or Engels etc. in their actual talents, abilities and revolutionary fervor are the same.

I'm sure Che took a lot of inspiration from the above, for example.

But yes - sorry I went a bit off-topic there - you are right to say that they only do that for personal glory, this lies at their basis.


And no offence LZ, but you have a fucking huge ego. :lol:

When you and TAT go at it, its like a battle of the egos.

Well yes, but remember, I said; "People have egos, but most of us can control them under most circumstances."

A debate with TAT is an exception to those "most circumstances". :p

[Tower of Bebel]

And funnily enough, the vanguard has always ended up as susbsituting itself for the working class in terms of power.

Deductions, deductions... :(. This "susbsituting itself for the working class in terms of power" was almost inevitable after what had happened just after the October Revolution. It's not just mentality, really.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Anyhow, I think it stems from the elitist views Leninists hold 'We are the vanguard...we must lead the masses...our ideas are right...blah blah blah.'
You think leninists are elitist? how about you check out anarchist organisations lol. I have never seen something more arrogant and above the working class than our local anarchist organisations. (Well they are all rich kids, surprise.) Standing above the working class and wanting to lead it does not result out of being leninist or anarchist but can be seen about everywhere where people fight for some kind of "greater good" and loose direct connection to the working class.

So cut your sectarian stupid crap and check out real life.


------------------------
On topic

Its funny we just managed to kick out a little Lenin after he gave us trouble for the last 3 years. He was a combination of both types... hard to get rid of

[Led Zeppelin]

On topic

Its funny we just managed to kick out a little Lenin after he gave us trouble for the last 3 years. He was a combination of both types... hard to get rid of

And congratulations for that! :D

[Dros]

Anyhow, I think it stems from the elitist views Leninists hold 'We are the vanguard...we must lead the masses...our ideas are right...blah blah blah.'

But... we actually are right and we actually do need to lead the working class. :lol::lol::lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I find it disheartening to oppose the organizational fetishism (another reductionism) that you display, dr (as if every segment of the working class needs to be led). Small-r revolutionary Marxists are against both spontaneism, as exhibited by Beautiful Anarchy, and organizational fetishism, as exhibited by yourself. :(

[Dean]

The Theory Nut:

This Little Lenin is certainly less harmful than the one described above, precisely because of their lack of activity in the real movement. It is much easier to ignore this one because you don't actually have to deal with them in practice.

Theory is a tool to be used for super-human purposes by this person. Everything wrong with the movement can be reduced to the wrong theory. So what is the solution? Come up with a better theory. And who better to do this than me, the next Lenin!

Practical activity, which gives a lot of insight in theory and specifically its application to practice, is essential to really know if your theory holds up, but no, this is not relevant to our Little Lenin, for he has known what is real in practice through the books he has read about it!

Yes, the theoretical knowledge of this person can come quite in handy if they do decide to "mend their ways" and become a serious revolutionary, but sadly most of them don't. To them revolutionary theory is a solely metaphysical matter, they only like the phrases, the solutions to historical problems, the analysis of events, etc. for purely problem-solving and flaunting purposes, like a game of chess.

When it stops being interesting, or reality smacks them in the proverbial face, they'll go on with their "real life", meaning their life as typical people doing typical things, the "ordinary life", as it's called.

This seems to me to be a criticism of those who fall outside the norm here, or simply think for themselves too much. I don't think its fair to judge people harshly because they are honest in their opinions, maybe you mean something else?

[Dros]

I find it disheartening to oppose the organizational fetishism (another reductionism) that you display, dr (as if every segment of the working class needs to be led). Small-r revolutionary Marxists are against both spontaneism, as exhibited by Beautiful Anarchy, and organizational fetishism, as exhibited by yourself. :(

Jacob, I was kinda joking. But not really.:D

Explain a.) what you mean by "organizational fetishism", b.) how I've done it, and c.) how it's reductionistic. You are the only person who speaks "social proletocratic" which is apparently a strange language you've created for yourself and your nonexistent tendency. :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

a) and b) Organizational fetishism encompasses a lot of things. What you said above implies that proles are sheep to be led by a shepherd, or Israelite slaves to be led by a Moses. Modern "centralism" - "democratic" or otherwise - is also an organizational fetishism. Folks like you and the Trots caricaturize the democratic centralism of Lenin (as if it were rigid :rolleyes: ). I have my criticisms (flexibility in allowing post-decision criticisms one moment, then gagging them the next), but at least they're of Lenin's democratic centralism and not the caricatures so prevalent amongst self-proclaimed "Leninist" parties.

c) Well, modern circumstances are different. The SPD model is more appropriate, and not the modern CIRCLE-ism (plus, in the case of the "RCP," cultism) that you so treasure.


You are the only person who speaks "social proletocratic" which is apparently a strange language you've created for yourself and your nonexistent tendency.

That people new to Marxism and/or outside conventional Marxist politics actually know the contraction behind "proletocracy" (literally "rule of the working class") more than the allegedly "knowledgeable" Marxists and pseudo-Marxists saddens me. :(

[Led Zeppelin]

This seems to me to be a criticism of those who fall outside the norm here, or simply think for themselves too much. I don't think its fair to judge people harshly because they are honest in their opinions, maybe you mean something else?

Yes I did.

There is nothing wrong with people having different ideas on different matters, that's actual quite good. Diverse opinions create diverse discussions, which is important to the theoretical development of any movement.

And people should most certianly be honest in their opinions! The degeneration starts when they stop being honest due to the pressure of the bureaucracy or Little Lenin's in the organization-machinery.

I was referring to people who specifically focus on Theory while disregarding Practice altogether. As I said, to them being a Marxist is a game, like chess. They like tinkering with it in their mind, but they don't like actually doing something to try and apply their ideas in the real world.

As a result of this, their ideas are usually nonsense as well.

Also, I was not specifically referring to Jacob with that, I believe some members got that impression, that's not really my fault...or intention.

[Dros]

a) and b) Organizational fetishism encompasses a lot of things. What you said above implies that proles are sheep to be led by a shepherd, or Israelite slaves to be led by a Moses. Modern "centralism" - "democratic" or otherwise - is also an organizational fetishism. Folks like you and the Trots caricaturize the democratic centralism of Lenin (as if it were rigid :rolleyes: ). I have my criticisms (flexibility in allowing post-decision criticisms one moment, then gagging them the next), but at least they're of Lenin's democratic centralism and not the caricatures so prevalent amongst self-proclaimed "Leninist" parties.

Yeah. Except as a self described "Leninist" you should no what the Leninist line on leading the masses is. I never said they were sheep. They do objectively need leadership. They need to lead themselves through the Vanguard party.


c) Well, modern circumstances are different. The SPD model is more appropriate, and not the modern CIRCLE-ism (plus, in the case of the "RCP," cultism) that you so treasure.

That doesn't really answer the question.


That people new to Marxism and/or outside conventional Marxist politics actually know the contraction behind "proletocracy" (literally "rule of the working class") more than the allegedly "knowledgeable" Marxists and pseudo-Marxists saddens me. :(

Yeah. I understand where you got the term "proletocracy". I was simply commenting on the funny words you make up.:D:D:D

[chegitz guevara]

Diverse opinions create diverse discussions, which is important to the theoretical development of any movement.
YES!

[chegitz guevara]

Yeah. Except as a self described "Leninist" you should no what the Leninist line on leading the masses is. I never said they were sheep. They do objectively need leadership. They need to lead themselves through the Vanguard party.

Yes, but for Lenin the vanguard wasn't the party, but the militant, revolutionary members of the working class, whom he wanted to recruit. That's what made his party a vanguard party. Not because he declared it so, but because the RSDLP sought to be the party of that layer of the working class . . . and succeeded. They didn't so much as win workers over to revolutionary politics, as win revolutionary workers to their organization.

[Dros]

Yes, but for Lenin the vanguard wasn't the party, but the militant, revolutionary members of the working class, whom he wanted to recruit. That's what made his party a vanguard party. Not because he declared it so, but because the RSDLP sought to be the party of that layer of the working class . . . and succeeded. They didn't so much as win workers over to revolutionary politics, as win revolutionary workers to their organization.

Right. I don't disagree with anything you said. How does this contradict my previous statement?

The vanguard of the working class and it's party should lead the masses in revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

drosera99, I don't think you understand what you've just said. Sometimes yes, the vanguard party must LEAD. Other times, however, it should only GUIDE.

Once more, I shall reiterate the very first historical sentence pertaining to Marxist vanguardism, which was REITERATED by Lenin:

"[The socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.” (http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm) (Karl Kautsky)

[gla22]

Right. I don't disagree with anything you said. How does this contradict my previous statement?

The vanguard of the working class and it's party should lead the masses in revolution.

Government by the people or government for the people. If the vanguard party becomes to detached from the working class we see failure.

[Dros]

Government by the people or government for the people. If the vanguard party becomes to detached from the working class we see failure.

Again... so what?

[Tower of Bebel]

Again... so what?

Well, first you said "[...] we actually do need to lead the working class.", which was shortly followed by "They need to lead themselves through the Vanguard party." and after that you wrote "The vanguard of the working class and it's party should lead [...]".
You started to correct yourself after reading the posts that followed your remarks. Maybe that's why gla22 made another remark, so that you would know what your original statement could lead to ;).

If the proletariat wants to rule of its class enemies it needs political domination, which is more than just a class conscious party of the vanguard. It's the vanguard as a whole that should rule. Otherwise the ruling party is detached from the vanguard - and the working class as a whole -, what only brings about a governenment over the people, not a governemnt by the people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Double-post (response to Comrade Rakunin) from the RevMarx thread on "vanguards":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-t79650/index.html



What remarks are you referring to?

(edit) Another question: does the immediate post-bourgeois society need the rule of the vanguard or the rule of the vanguard party?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm


In still another way the Socialists are revolutionary. They recognize that the power of the state is an instrument of class domination, and indeed the most powerful instrument, and that the social revolution for which the proletariat strives cannot be realized until it shall have captured political power.

...

On the other hand, the possibility of capturing and holding the state for the proletariat only exists where the working class has grown to great proportions, is in large part firmly organized, and conscious of its class interests and its relation to state and society.

Again, a corrective note: Kautsky failed to differentiate between organs of workers' power (soviets, workplace committees, workers' militias, etc.) and organs of state power (parliaments, police, military, etc.). In this work he still clings to parliamentary reductionism. The former group is to be "captured," while the latter group is to be smashed and replaced by the former.



As for your question regarding vanguard-party rule, taking into account my corrective note above, by and large I agree with Kautsky (and his "disciple" Lenin).



So if our resident sponties like Beautiful Anarchy wish to call KAUTSKY a "Blanquist," then please... :rolleyes:

[Dros]

Well, first you said "[...] we actually do need to lead the working class.", which was shortly followed by "They need to lead themselves through the Vanguard party." and after that you wrote "The vanguard of the working class and it's party should lead [...]".
You started to correct yourself after reading the posts that followed your remarks. Maybe that's why gla22 made another remark, so that you would know what your original statement could lead to ;).

Those statements are equivalent. There is no difference in line, only in phasing. The the proletariat must be led to make a revolution by it's vanguard and it's vanguard party. The Proletariat will then create a dictatorship through its vanguard party and through direct democracy. There is no inconsistency here at all. If there is going to be a conversation, someone is going to have to make a criticism of my actual line.


If the proletariat wants to rule of its class enemies it needs political domination, which is more than just a class conscious party of the vanguard. It's the vanguard as a whole that should rule. Otherwise the ruling party is detached from the vanguard - and the working class as a whole -, what only brings about a governenment over the people, not a governemnt by the people.

I disagree. It's the proletariat as a whole that should rule and that rule should be carried out in party by the Vanguard party.

Anyway, how is that line implementable? How can we say the vanguard is in control? How can you quantify class consciousness? That is why the Vanguard Party must be legally inshrined in the new state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Oh, boy. Legally enshrining the "vanguard party" will only invite corruption (Moshe Lewin's "no-party state" remarks). :(

Anyway, at least you don't resort to cheap, inaccurate pics, dr.

[Module]

I disagree. It's the proletariat as a whole that should rule and that rule should be carried out in party by the Vanguard party.

The Vanguard party isn't the proletariat as a whole.
There's no such thing as so and so ruling, and then so and so-else 'carrying out' the rule.
(Sorry to interrupt.)

[YSR]

It's good that you're identifying these kind of behaviors, LZ, though I don't really think they're anything particularly ground-breaking. Feminists have been calling this shit out since the 60's.

The Grand Coolie Damn (http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/damn.html), which ironically, I just discovered yesterday, is a decent analysis from a socialist feminist.

[Led Zeppelin]

It's good that you're identifying these kind of behaviors, LZ, though I don't really think they're anything particularly ground-breaking. Feminists have been calling this shit out since the 60's.

The Grand Coolie Damn (http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/damn.html), which ironically, I just discovered yesterday, is a decent analysis from a socialist feminist.

Thank you for the compliment and the link, but I never said it was anything ground-breaking or new, in fact I said the opposite:


In Lenin's day it was probably called the Little Marx syndrome, for I can't imagine a time where this disorder didn't exist in the revolutionary left.

[...]

And also very important, I'm not claiming I invented a new phenomena or something, this has been existent in revolutionary organizations from the days of Marx and Engels!
From my posts on the first page (http://www.revleft.com/vb/little-lenin-syndrome-t79541/index.html)

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Interesting.

Reminds me of that '68 graffiti:

Warning: ambitious careerists may now be disguised as “progressives.”

[Leo]

I have a question for Led Zeppelin.

What do you think causes this sort of "degenerate" [so to speak] approaches?

[Led Zeppelin]

I have a question for Led Zeppelin.

What do you think causes this sort of "degenerate" [so to speak] approaches?

I partly responded to this already:


My analysis was limited to revolutionary leftist organizations and parties of any tendency, and I don't believe class-background has a big part to play in their development.

As I said, people have egos, but most of us can control them under most circumstances. The people who can't because they have an ego too big for their own good are the ones that can seriously harm the atmosphere of an organization or party.

Let me put it this way; the future bureaucrats and careerists are most likely to be found amongst these Little Lenin's.

As for what causes such people to be in the party-machinery? Lack of class-consciousness on the part of the working-class, which causes limited resources (in terms of human material) to be available, and therefore forces organizations and parties to have to deal with such people, or be taken-over by them, if they aren't already, that is.

[Leo]

I partly responded to this already:


My analysis was limited to revolutionary leftist organizations and parties of any tendency, and I don't believe class-background has a big part to play in their development.

As I said, people have egos, but most of us can control them under most circumstances. The people who can't because they have an ego too big for their own good are the ones that can seriously harm the atmosphere of an organization or party.

Let me put it this way; the future bureaucrats and careerists are most likely to be found amongst these Little Lenin's.


As for what causes such people to be in the party-machinery? Lack of class-consciousness on the part of the working-class, which causes limited resources (in terms of human material) to be available, and therefore forces organizations and parties to have to deal with such people, or be taken-over by them, if they aren't already, that is.

Yes, I do see your point, but I was actually trying to pose the question in a wider sort of way.

First of all this is not just a question of future bureaucrats and careerists, but it is more generally a question of infiltration, most commonly ideological infiltration of course but also a possible case material infiltration. So the first question is, how can an organization prevent such people from entering as much as possible. I think the solution to this problem is clear: I see a massive problem with this never questioned sacred need to "recruit new people" all the time, and the whole mentality that comes with it. Obviously any serious organization would want new militants and would want to grow. Nevertheless as you say ""the lack of class-consciousness on the part of the working-class causes limited resources (in terms of human material) to be available"". Today, this does, by itself, regardless of whether a group is recruitmentist or not, prevent any truly revolutionary group to gain such large influence among the working class enough for that the group to be able to function as a real revolutionary party*. This hopefully will change in the future, but nevertheless this is the situation today and recruiting at all costs will not change. Yet it will change other things, and not for good either. Such mentality, from the psychological level possibly originating from the fantasies of "Little Lenins" who masturbate over the thought that they will be the next guy whose picture will be hung over the walls, but that is fundamentally a bourgeois mentality, is in turn something that generates more "Little Lenins". Even in a fully proletarian organization, with truly decent communist principles and intentions, isolation, counter-revolution among other things can cause things like the urge to recruit more and more. Even then, no matter the excuse, this would be opportunism, an influence of bourgeois ideology in a proletarian organization.

What is the alternative of recruitment? I think it is real and organic integration of militants into an organization, through long debates that are aimed at clarifying the principles, political positions, theory and practice of the communist organization. This requires patience, sincerity, the will to discuss and it is a mirror on the seriousness of a comrade who wants to be the militants of an organizations. Communist organizations are not shirts to be changed when bored. Militancy is serious work, and also work that either already is or might possibly get at any time seriously dangerous for militants due to the fundamentally repressive nature of all bourgeois states. A communist organization can't survive without militants whose convictions are solid and who are not in this for kicks and giggles but who are serious about doing all they can for the cause of their class. Being always open to debate in order to clarify while establishing this debate as a criteria for integration of new militants is the most effective, possibly the only effective line of defense of a communist organization against infiltration of ideologies or agents of alien classes. Also, of course, a continuous debate to clarify communist theory and positions both within the organization and with the outside is vital for the organization to keep living.

Anyway, of course even though the organization is very careful about discussing deeply with militants who are integrated, it is always possible for people with "big egos" to "slip in". However, those people getting in is something, and those people being able to control and manipulate an organization is something else. The former can happen, and would not necessarily be a massive fault on the part of the organization. The latter, on the other hand, would show that there is a serious, a very very serious problem with the organization. Such situation should, and in a properly functioning and healthy communist organization (which too is bound to have problems) trigger a crisis within the organization, and the majority of the militants, who are clear about their convictions, clear on being a part of a communist organization, clear on what being a militant means, clear on the need for openness in the debate and thus the militants of the organization would defend the organization in such case and if needed would kick the asses of the "Little Lenins". It would be a clear sign of a deep problem with an organization claiming to be revolutionary if militants are not raising their voices in a clear manner against things like this.

*And this has always been the case in my opinion, for instance the left wing of the Second International (Luxemburg, Lenin Pannekoek, Bordiga, Gorter, Trotsky, Bukharin, Pankhurst and others) did not attempt to form the Communist International when they did not even fill one wagon of a train.

[Led Zeppelin]

Good post there Leo, I agree with you entirely.

You basically described the difference between neo-Menshevism (the drive to recruit new members at all costs and at all times in the hopes of becoming a mass-party) and Marxism.

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks originally split because of this issue, so it was a rather important question back in the day as well. I believe this has been forgotten by many people now because the resources are so scarce, they don't want to make it even more scarce by rejecting members.

I, and anyone else, can join any revolutionary-leftist organization or party with ease, all we need to do is pay the monthly membership dues. :lol:

The result of this? Well...just look at the history of our movement for the past few decades.

[Tower of Bebel]

We must not lay on or backs waiting for some revolutionaries to pass by our organisation (which ever that might be). We, revolutionaries within the labour movement, must also recrute those who are not yet revolutionary socialists but still people we can build upon. Of course, those who are recruted to the revolutionary fraction need to be confronted with serious discussions before and after they became members.


You basically described the difference between neo-Menshevism (the drive to recruit new members at all costs and at all times in the hopes of becoming a mass-party) and Marxism.

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks originally split because of this issue, so it was a rather important question back in the day as well. I believe this has been forgotten by many people now because the resources are so scarce, they don't want to make it even more scarce by rejecting members.

I think this is an inaccurate description of the split. I don't believe that the Mensehviks in the early 20th century were that opportunistic and that we can explain Lenin's organisational methodes without the specific context of that time and place. Lenin didn't have a new model, Lenin had a methode adapted to specific circumstances. These were the fact that the Russian marxists had to operate underground because of an absolutist regime (what a difference with the bourgeos-democratic regimes of Western Europe!).

[Led Zeppelin]

We must not lay on or backs waiting for some revolutionaries to pass by our organisation (which ever that might be). We, revolutionaries within the labour movement, must also recrute those who are not yet revolutionary socialists but still people we can build upon. Of course, those who are recruted to the revolutionary fraction need to be confronted with serious discussions before and after they became members.

Members who aren't serious are useless.

They will leave the organization sooner or later anyway, the only thing they'll have done by the time they leave is damage, if they didn't take-over the party and change its policy already.


I think this is an inaccurate description of the split. I don't believe that the Mensehviks in the early 20th century were that opportunistic and that we can explain Lenin's organisational methodes without the specific context of that time and place. Lenin didn't have a new model, Lenin had a methode adapted to specific circumstances. These were the fact that the Russian marxists had to operate underground because of an absolutist regime (what a difference with the bourgeos-democratic regimes of Western Europe!).

Actually it's not an inaccurate description, and you don't understand Lenin's position.

Yes, the intention was for them to form a party different from the mass-parties of Western-Europe because they had to operate under conditions of illegality. They would have of course preferred to have a more open party with a more broader ability to spread their ideas (which is not the same as having a Social-Democratic mass-party), but how come Lenin didn't change his position after the 1905 revolution? How come Lenin didn't change his position after the February 1917 revolution? How come Lenin only changed his position post-revolution and then the party was "opened up"?

Because he understood that conditions of legality under capitalism are always temporary, and will be breached whenever the movement gets too strong for the tastes of the bourgeoisie.

When you only have experience as a mass-party, functioning as one, acting like one, and being one, you will have no chance at all to transform yourself to a smaller party made-up of the most dedicated sections of the vanguard, in fact, you will become so intertwined with bourgeois legality that you will yourself become an obstacle to revolution, instead of a propogator of it.

Do you want examples? How about all the parties of the Second International, who only a few years (even months!) before were officially Marxist, but when the time of revolution came chose the path of reformism?

Had these parties been limited to the vanguard, the likes of Luxembourg, Liebknecht etc. it would have been a very different matter indeed.

If our intention is to become a mass-party when class-consciousness is so low, you'll have to dilute your programme and aims to such an extent that you would not be worthy of the name "revolutionary".

Lenin knew this, which is why he called on parties and organizations to form themselves in embryonic form, to hold out against the tide and wait for the right moment, when class-consciousness begins to rise again, and catch that tide as best possible.

The tide has come many times here, they always failed to catch it.

I know partly why, this thread hints at it.

[Leo]

We, revolutionaries within the labour movement, must also recrute those who are not yet revolutionary socialists but still people we can build upon.Well, lets quote old Lennie here to point out haw far the "apples" rolled away:

"Does my formulation narrow or enlarge the concept of a Party member? My formulation narrows this concept, whereas Martov's enlarges it, for what distinguishes his concept is (to use his own, correct expression) its 'elasticity'. And in the period of the Party's life which we are now passing through it is just this 'elasticity' that most certainly opens the door to all the elements of confusion, vacillation and opportunism. Safeguarding the firmness of the Party's line and the purity of its principles has now become all the more urgent because, with the restoration of its unity, the Party will recruit many unstable elements, whose numbers will increase as the Party grows ... The Party must be only the vanguard of the vast mass of the working class ... but the whole of which does not and should not belong to the Party" (1903, Minutes of the Second Congress of the RSDLP, New Park, 1978, p327, twenty third session, 2 August)


You basically described the difference between neo-Menshevism (the drive to recruit new members at all costs and at all times in the hopes of becoming a mass-party) and Marxism.

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks originally split because of this issue, so it was a rather important question back in the day as well.Yes, that was exactly the reason. Here's a good article which I'd recommend on the split: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/116_1903.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think this is an inaccurate description of the split. I don't believe that the Mensehviks in the early 20th century were that opportunistic and that we can explain Lenin's organisational methodes without the specific context of that time and place. Lenin didn't have a new model, Lenin had a methode adapted to specific circumstances. These were the fact that the Russian marxists had to operate underground because of an absolutist regime (what a difference with the bourgeos-democratic regimes of Western Europe!).

Correct (especially if you read Lars Lih). In the beginning, it was the MENSHEVIK definition of membership that prevailed. At the unity congress in 1906, the Bolshevik definition prevailed due to practical reasons. The original split occurred for other reasons (the editorial board). (http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm)

Also, what of modern organizations that pay no dues at all? Personal participation in "party" organizations becomes all the more important!!!


When you only have experience as a mass-party, functioning as one, acting like one, and being one, you will have no chance at all to transform yourself to a smaller party made-up of the most dedicated sections of the vanguard, in fact, you will become so intertwined with bourgeois legality that you will yourself become an obstacle to revolution, instead of a propogator of it.

That's only because of parliamentary reductionism (participation in the organs of state power).

[Led Zeppelin]

The original split occurred for other reasons (the editorial board). (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm)

That was one issue, but not the main issue.

The main and starting issue was the party rules and the difference of formulation between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, as I explained above, and as the article Leo linked to elaborates on.


That's only because of parliamentary reductionism (participation in the organs of state power).

No it isn't, see the CPUSA or other such "official" Communist parties which have never participated in state-power yet are now a caricature of the past Social-Democratic "mass-parties" (though they don't really have support of the "mass" now, luckily).

Their programme has become so diluted that the Social-Democrats of the early 20th century had a more leftist programme than they do.

[Tower of Bebel]

Well, lets quote old Lennie here to point out haw far the "apples" rolled away:

According to Lenin the membership should be participating in the party's organs, whereas Martov said otherwise. Wasn't that the innitial difference?

[Leo]

According to Lenin the membership should be participating in the party's organs, whereas Martov said otherwise. Wasn't that the innitial difference?

Well yes, but even in most abstract logic terms, if you have non-revolutionaries participating in the parties organs, that is actually participating in the life of the party and affecting it's functioning, than that party will not be a revolutionary party.

The quote I used is the exact continuation of the position saying that members should participate in partys organs. Otherwise the position becomes even worse than that of Martov.

[Tower of Bebel]

Well yes, but even in most abstract logic terms, if you have non-revolutionaries participating in the parties organs, that is actually participating in the life of the party and affecting it's functioning, than that party will not be a revolutionary party.

The quote I used is the exact continuation of the position saying that members should participate in partys organs. Otherwise the position becomes even worse than that of Martov.

Well, what I meant by letting non-marxists ("not yet revolutionary socialists") in, is that I think that those people who want to become a member - but not yet marxists - should be allowed under the condition that they will become marxists through discussion, practice and study.

But I think this discussion is a bit too much off topic.

[Leo]

Well, what I meant by letting non-marxists ("not yet revolutionary socialists") in, is that I think that those people who want to become a member - but not yet marxists

Yes, that is what I meant also.


should be allowed under the condition that they will become marxists through discussion, practice and study.

What is this hurry about? Will they run away if you discuss with them throughly before joining?

And how can you allow someone under the condition that they will become something? What if they don't become what you intend them to become?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fortunately, Social-Labour Democracy has four criteria, and not three, for membership (for obvious reasons #3 isn't in the works yet):

1) Agreement with the "maximum" position of "full workers' ownership and control over the economy as a means to end the exploitation of labour" (so this would include real reformists like "democratic socialists" - social-labour democracy via parliamentary conquest or via referendum - but exclude modern-day "social-democratic" social-fascists);
2) Acceptance of the organization's programme (thus including revolutionary and reformist "maximalists" who reject the minimum and reformist elements of the minimum-reformist-revolutionary program);
3) Personal financial support of the organization; and
4) Personal participation in the organization.


Well, what I meant by letting non-marxists ("not yet revolutionary socialists") in, is that I think that those people who want to become a member - but not yet marxists - should be allowed under the condition that they will become marxists through discussion, practice and study.

Well, so long as the "maximum" position is held by such members... I mean, I'm sure there are non-Marxists who hold such "maximum" position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if a mod wishes to split this thread (particularly starting with the discussion between Leo and LZ), because I do think that the subject of "membership" needs to be revisited upon by modern revolutionaries. :(