I'm curious as to how Left Communists view Lenin and his ideas. I've noticed that many seem to be "anti-leninists" but I am unsure whether this means being against Lenin himself and his ideas, or the ideologies that claim to follow his legacy, such as Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. For my own part, I am a critical fan of Lenin and his theories. I think he was a genuine revolutionary, but that he made mistakes and that there are flaws in certain parts of his theories. Oh, I'm also vehemently against Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, as well as Trotskyism to a lesser degree.
For my own part, I am a critical fan of Lenin and his theories. I think he was a genuine revolutionary, but that he made mistakes and that there are flaws in certain parts of his theories. Oh, I'm also vehemently against Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, as well as Trotskyism to a lesser degree. A lot of us left communists would agree with that way of looking at Lenin. But which mistakes, and which theoretical flaws?
I'm also kind of "critical fan" of Lenin, since his book State and Revolution was the "trigger" for me to leave anarchism.
For one, I believe the NEP was a mistake. Secondly, I believe that in some ways Lenin put too much emphasis in the party. I seem to recall him stating that the workers actually could not gain class consciousness without the assistance of the party, something which I think is a false conclusion. I am not against parties, but I do believe that they should be a tool of the working class. The primary role of a party in my opinion should be to facilitate the growth of class consciousness and equip the proletariat with the tools it needs to destroy capitalism rather than seeking to achieve state power for itself(the party). In addition, I am quite critical of Lenin's idea of super profits and labor aristocracy. Not only do I think the idea of super profits is flawed, but that it is actually counter productive in terms of fostering internationalism. I have found myself in a kind of ideological limbo, I'm to the left of the Leninist ideologies, but it seems like I have had a lot of false assumptions about left communism. Seems like it's time to hit the books.
You shouldn't also forget Lenin on national question, his elimination of fractions in party and other political mistakes during Civil War... for example, too much terror on different political groups of proletariat (for example anarchists etc.).
You're absolutely right, Lenin expresses support for national self determination. This is completely inconsistent with the goal of communism. Internationalism should not be an abstract ideal, but something real and tangible that is to be practiced. It seems to me that the flavors of Leninism have been "tainted" for lack of a better word, with this kind of pro-nationalist sentiment. The intolerance of factionalism is also problematic, parties should be democratic and open to dissenting views. Most Leninists insist that this is what democratic centralism is about, but in reality it seems that they are more concerned about crushing dissenting views. This probably is the cause of the excessive sectarianism and frequent splits seen in Leninist parties.
Regarding Lenin and Left Communism as a whole, I would say that there are two extremes for whom Lenin is a bit of a fetish. Bordigists on one extreme try to be more Leninist than Lenin while on the other side there are a number of currents who see themselves and anti-Leninist and see in him the root of the degeneration of the revolution (or even the concept that it wasn't even proletarian). The latter group have a weaker relationship with the left communist tradition, though, I would say. Many here would argue that Councilism for instance is not really a part of Left Communism. My point is: Left Communism is not defined specifically by a position on Lenin, whether pro or against.
I think it's important to see Lenin's views historically in two senses: as products of a certain moment in the history of the workers' movement, and also, as concepts that Lenin himself changed in the light of historical experience and realities. For example, the national question: when Lenin disagreed with Luxemburg over support for national independence around the time of the First World War, historical experience had not yet decisively settled the argument in favour of Luxemburg, who argued that national movements, far from weakening imperialism, could from now on only function as adjuncts in imperialist wars. So there's a difference between Lenin and those who continue to preach the 'Leninist' line on national liberation today. The question of Lenin's formulation about the working class only being able to achieve a trade union consciousness is also a lot more complex than the mechanical line drawn by many anarchists between what Lenin wrote in 1903 and the actual substitutionism of the Bolsheviks during the Russian revolution. For a start in 1903 (What is to be Done) Lenin was writing a very necessary critique of the economists, those who wanted class consciousness to remain at the 'trade union' level. As Lenin later admitted, he 'bent the stick' too far, adopting a theory of class consciousness (actually Kautsky's) which was in contradiction to Marx's view of revolutionary consciousness as the product not of the intelligentsia but of a revolutionary class. In his actual practice in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, Lenin left this view of class consciousness behind, when he and the Bolsheviks were acting as a real vanguard of the proletarian movement - only to return to a version of it with the decline and degeneration of the revolution, which left the Bolsheviks tangled up in a state that quickly began to take on a capitalist function.
